9911796707
|
Home
Forgot password New User/ Regiser ⇒ Register to get Live Demo
2015 (3) TMI 26 - HC - CustomsCommission of the offences punishable under Sections 25(A), 28 and 29 of NDPS Act - Contravention of provisions of Section 9A of NDPS Act and Clause 3 of Narcotics Drugs and Psychotropic Substances (Regulation of Controlled Substances) Order, 1993 - petitioners came forward to file these petitions for return of CPUs as well as mobile phones for the reason that even as per the version of the prosecution, data stored therein have been retrieved and no purpose would be served by keeping those articles in the custody of the respondent - Held that - impugned order dated 18.09.2014 made in Cr.M.P.Nos.1572 and 1573 of 2014 respectively, on the file of the Principal Special Court for EC & NDPS Act Cases, Madurai is set aside and the return of articles sought for by the petitioners is ordered, subject to the certain conditions - Appeal disposed of.
Issues:
1. Seizure of CPUs and mobile phones during investigation. 2. Petition for the return of seized articles. 3. Dismissal of petitions by Trial Court. 4. Appeal against dismissal in High Court. 5. Arguments for and against the return of articles. 6. High Court's decision and conditions imposed. Seizure of CPUs and mobile phones during investigation: The respondent seized six CPUs and mobile phones during the investigation under a cover of seizure mahazar. The Hard Discs from the CPUs were removed and analyzed by the Central Forensic Science Laboratory for data retrieval from the Hard Discs and Mobile Phones. Petition for the return of seized articles: The petitioners, who were accused in a case under the NDPS Act, filed petitions seeking the return of the seized CPUs and mobile phones. They argued that since the investigation was almost complete and data had been retrieved from the devices, there was no need to keep them in custody. The respondent opposed the petitions, stating that the articles could be confiscated and might be used during the trial. Dismissal of petitions by Trial Court: The Trial Court dismissed the petitions for the return of the seized articles, considering the objections raised by the respondent and the ongoing investigation. The Court felt that retaining the articles was necessary for the trial proceedings. Appeal against dismissal in High Court: Feeling aggrieved by the Trial Court's decision, the petitioners filed revisions in the High Court seeking the return of the seized CPUs and mobile phones. Arguments for and against the return of articles: The petitioners argued that since the investigation was at an advanced stage and data had been retrieved, the seized articles should be returned to them. On the other hand, the Special Public Prosecutor contended that despite data retrieval, the articles were liable for confiscation and might be marked as material objects during the trial. High Court's decision and conditions imposed: After hearing both parties, the High Court ordered the return of the articles to the petitioners. The Court set aside the Trial Court's order and imposed conditions for the return, including executing a personal bond, not altering the articles, and producing them when required by the Court concerned.
|
