Full Judgment
1 CRIMINAL REVISION NO.674/2013. 18.07.2013. Shri Wajid Hyder, learned counsel for the applicant. Shri R. S. Siddiqui, learned Assistant Solicitor General for the respondent/CBI. This case is listed today for further orders but in the available circumstances with the consent of the parties the same is heard finally.
1. Petitioner/ accused No.3 has filed this revision under Section 397/401 of Cr. P. C. being aggrieved by the order dated 19.3.2013 passed by the Special Judge, (CBI), Jabalpur in Misc. Criminal Case No.05/2012, whereby his application dated 7.3.2013 (Ann. P.3) for returning the original warehouse's receipt of 360 bags of Chana has been dismissed.
2. The applicant's counsel after taking us through the averments of revision memo along with the application and the impugned order argued that in the lack of such original receipt the applicant is not in a position to get back his goods from the concerning warehouse and if such receipt is not made available to him then not only the applicant but the nation may also suffer the loss. He further said that inspite making such document as part and partial of the charge sheet original receipt of the same was not placed with the charge sheet. However, he fairly submits that photo copy of such original receipt has been supplied to him but on the basis of such photo copy he is not in a position to get back his goods (Chana) from the warehouse. In such premises the impugned order passed by the trial Court rejecting his application is apparently perverse and under the error of 2 jurisdiction vested in such Court and prayed to set aside the impugned order and allow such application by admitting and allowing the revision.
3. On the other hand Assistant Solicitor General argued that during investigation such receipt was seized, the same was made the part of the charge sheet and after supplying photo copy of such receipt to the applicant the charge sheet was filed and in order to prove the case, the same has been sent to Government Examiner of Questioned Documents, Calcutta for obtaining the requisite expert report to verify its veracity and hand writing etc., the expert report is still awaited, unless such report along with the receipt is received same could not be made available on the record of the trial Court. He further said that the impugned order has been passed under the vested discretionary jurisdiction by the trial Court, therefore under the revisional jurisdiction the same could not be interfered by this Court. He further argued that there is catena of decisions in which it is held that if any order is passed by any subordinate Court under its vested jurisdiction then under the revisional jurisdiction the same could not be interfered and prayed for dismissal of the revision.
4. Having heard the counsel, keeping in view their arguments, we have carefully gone through the papers placed on record along with the revision memo. It is apparent that the impugned application (Ann. P.3) has been dismissed by the trial Court under it's vested jurisdiction and not committed any error of jurisdiction, so in such premises the impugned order could not be interfered by this Court under Section 397/401 of Cr. P. C. It is also apparent that in passing the impugned order no irregularity or any thing against the 3 propriety of law has been committed by the subordinate Court. In such premises also the impugned order does not require any interference at this stage.
5. Apart the aforesaid, on examining the case on merits it is apparent fact that aforesaid receipt of the warehouse was seized in connection of the impugned offence during the course of the investigation, same has been sent to the aforesaid expert for its examination and obtaining the report and unless such report is received along with the original document either the trial Court or this Court cannot pass any order to return the original document to the petitioner. In any case such original receipt is part of the charge sheet of the impugned case, the trial Court has a discretion to return the same and that question may be considered by such Court only after receiving the expert report in that regard, which is not possible at this stage because such report is still awaited. However, it is observed that after receiving the report and the original receipt, the applicant shall be at liberty to file appropriate application to get back the aforesaid original receipt and pursuant to that trial Court is directed that if any such application is preferred on behalf of the applicant after receiving the aforesaid report along with the original document then same shall be considered in accordance with the procedure prescribed under the law.
6. The revision is dismissed accordingly. (U. C. Maheshwari) (Mrs. Vimla Jain) Judge Judge k