Interim Order 1

Order Details: Order Below EX 1
Pdf Text: C. C. No. 513 PW 2025 State Vs Anita
CNR-MHMM18-002515-2025
ORDER BELOW EXH.7
1. Perused record and contents of the application. Perused say filed by
Ld. A.P.P. and accused. Heard Ld. Advocate for the applicant/informant,
Ld. Advocate for the accused and Ld. A.P.P.
2. Brief facts leading to filing of this application filed under Sec.503
of Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023, by the applicant/informant
for claiming the amount of Rs.17,71,000/- seized by Investigating Officer
during investigation from the custody of accused, can be summarized in a
sense that, the present applicant lodged report with Bandra Police Station,
Mumbai, alleging that some unknown persons entered in her house during
her absence and stolen the ornaments and cash, total value of which is
Rs.32 lacs. During investigation it is transpired that accused was working
with informant as maid and she has stolen the amount and ornaments.
Accused has been arrested and from her custody the cash of
Rs.17,71,000/- has been seized. Applicant/informant claimed this amount
contending that she is the owner of it and in it’s urgent need. She is ready
to produce the cash whenever required by the court and ready to remain
abide by the conditions, if any, imposed.
4. The say of the Ld. A.P.P. and accused was called. Ld. A.P.P.
submitted that the cash belongs to the informant and prosecution has no
objection to hand it over to her. Accused objected to it, vide her say,
Exhs.9 and 11, stating that the very incidence of theft is doubtful.
Accused was a faithful person of informant working with her and was in
possession of keys of her house. She has no criminal antecedents. There
is no evidence produced by informant to show that she was possessing
such large sum. The claim is weak as no financial documents submitted
by informant to justify the possession of such amount. Out of the total
amount, the accused was possessing cash of Rs.3.5 lacs, on account of
Page - 1/3
-- 1 of 3 --
C. C. No. 513 PW 2025 State Vs Anita
CNR-MHMM18-002515-2025
prize received by her through chit fund. Without proper inquiry police
seized the cash. Therefore, the amount of Rs.3.5 lacs, be returned to
accused and remaining amount be forfeited to Government.
5. If we perused record and facts admitted by the accused herself it is
clear that accused was working with the informant and was in possession
of keys of her house. The record of investigation i.e. charge sheet shows
that there is material to connect the accused with the allegations and her
involvement in the alleged act can not be ruled out. Accused claimed the
amount, but on her own given explanation only in respect of just an
amount of Rs.3.5 lacs, out of Rs.17,71,000/-, which is also somewhat
vague and unsatisfactory. Against it from the material produced with the
charge sheet it can be inferred for limited purpose of this decision that it
is the stolen property received from alleged act.
7. In addition to it, the most important fact to be considered is that the
law in respect of disposal of property as per Section 503 of Bharatiya
Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023, (erstwhile Section 457 of Code of
Criminal Procedure), is well settled. The material fact to be considered
for the decision of such application is entitlement of proper custody. The
court should not go into the merits of the matter to decide the ownership.
Such jurisdiction is vested with civil court. The above discussed facts
came on record from the charge sheet and the facts admitted by the
accused herself, leads to inference that informant is entitled to custody of
cash seized.
8. For these reasons and as ownership can not be decided by this court
the question that how the cash came in possession of informant?, can not
be gone into by this court and the other objection raised by accused can
not be taken into account. The jurisdiction is of summary nature and
having limitations to decide the issue of ownership.
Page - 2/3
-- 2 of 3 --
C. C. No. 513 PW 2025 State Vs Anita
CNR-MHMM18-002515-2025
9. The cash is in custody of the Investigating Officer since long
without any use to anybody. Applicant is ready to furnish security and
remain abide by the conditions, if any, imposed. The mandate imposed by
Supreme Court in the case of Sunderbhai Ambalal Desai Vs. State of Gujarat
(AIR 2003 SC 638), is bound to be followed and the cash being national
wealth can not be allowed to be kept in custody of Investigating Officer
without any use for further period.
10. In view of above discussed legal and factual aspects of the matter
and as objections raised are not sustainable, application needs to be
allowed. Therefore, following order -
ORDER
A. Application is allowed.
B. P.S.O. Bandra Police Station, Mumbai, is herewith directed to
handover the custody of cash of Rs.17,71,000/-, seized in connection with
C.R. No.1667 of 2024, registered with Bandra Police Station, for offences
punishable under Section 305, etc. of Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita, 2023, to
the applicant Mrs. Manisha Rajabhau Phad, on her executing Indemnity
Bond of Rs.18,00,000/-, before him.
C. After completion of all the formalities the P.S.O., shall report the
compliance and shall also send the copy of Indemnity Bond to this court
and it shall be kept with charge sheet/present matter.
MUMBAI (KOMALSING RAJPUT)
DATE – 07.05.2025 J.M.F.C., 12TH COURT, BANDRA, MUMBAI
Page - 3/3
-- 3 of 3 --