2016 (2) TMI 1110 - HC - Indian Laws

Direction under Section 482 Cr.P.C to the respondent to return his property documents - Held that - In this case, the petition mentioned documents are not listed under Section 207 Cr.P.C. Thus, they are not proposed to be relied on as against the accused. No acceptable reason has been stated by the CBI to retain those documents. These documents are property documents. Now, right to hold property though not a fundamental right became a legal right under Article 300-A of the Constitution of India. Though it is a private right, it has constitutional recognition. Without holding the property document, there is no pride in having a property. Thus, one s right to hold the property document itself is a legal right. It can be taken away only in a manner known to law, dehors law, a person s property document cannot be taken away. Now, in this case, already there is judicial direction to return the documents to the petitioner in the proceedings initiated under the Arbitration and Conciliation Act. It cannot be denied that the said property documents belong to the petitioner. It also cannot be denied that directions have been issued by this Court in C.M.A.No.3109 of 2012 to A2 to return the said documents to the petitioner. Thus, in the interest of justice, the documents are required to be returned to the petitioner.

Summary

Issues:
Petitioner seeking return of property documents seized by CBI during investigation.

Analysis:
1. The petitioner, a third party, filed a petition under Section 482 Cr.P.C requesting the return of his property documents seized by the CBI during the investigation. The documents in question were vital to prove the guilt alleged against the accused in the ongoing case.

2. The CBI had seized the documents during a raid on the premises of one of the accused. The investigation concluded with the filing of a Final Report under Section 173(2) Cr.P.C, and the case was pending before the Special Judge.

3. The petitioner had previously filed a petition seeking the return of documents in the trial court, which was dismissed. Subsequently, in civil proceedings under the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, the arbitrator had directed the accused to return the documents to the petitioner, a decision upheld by the courts.

4. The inherent jurisdiction of the High Court under Section 482 Cr.P.C allows it to prevent abuse of process or to secure the ends of justice. In this case, the Court found that the property documents rightfully belonged to the petitioner and that there were existing judicial directions for their return.

5. The Court emphasized the importance of property rights, noting that the right to hold property documents is a legal right protected under the Constitution. Given the absence of valid reasons for the CBI to retain the documents and the previous court orders, the High Court ordered the respondent to return the documents to the petitioner.

6. The Court directed the respondent to hand over the specified property documents to the Special Judge (CBI cases), who would then return them to the petitioner after obtaining an undertaking for their production as required by the Court. The judgment highlighted the necessity of upholding property rights and ensuring justice in the matter.