Telangana High Court
Manappuram Finance Ltd. vs The State Of Telangana on 17 December, 2024
Author: B. Vijaysen Reddy
Bench: B. Vijaysen Reddy
THE HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE B. VIJAYSEN REDDY WRIT PETITION Nos.37182 of 2021; 41686 and 42682 of 2022; 2368, 6180 and 31018 of 2023 and 83, 2418, 5675, 7481, 8346, 13233, 16060, 21206, 23253 and 25844 of 2024 COMMON ORDER:
Since the issue involved in all these writ petitions are similar,
this batch of writ petitions is disposed of by this common order.
The facts in leading case, being, WP.No.37182 of 2021, are set out
for the sake of convenience and disposal of this batch of writ
petitions.
WP.No.37182 of 2021:
2. Notice dated 21.12.2021 issued to the petitioner-
M/s. Manappuram Finance Limited, under Section 91 of the Criminal
Procedure Code, 1973, to return the alleged stolen property
deposited in the name of Bantu Jayaraju, for further investigation is
challenged in this writ petition.
3. The case of the petitioner is that it is a company incorporated
under the Companies Act, 1956 and registered as a Non-Banking
Finance Company with the Reserve Bank of India. The petitioner
company is carrying on its business activities as per the Rules,
Regulations and Guidelines issued by the RBI from time to time.
The petitioner is primarily in the business of facilitation of loans
against the security of gold ornaments to its customers. The gold
loans are given on application and after due process of verification
2
of identity and valuation of the security. Pledges are typically used
in securing loans, pawning property for immediate cash,
by guaranteeing that contract, on failure to repay the loan, the
bank has every legal right to dispose the gold to recover the dues
as per the terms of the contract of loan.
4. It is submitted that the respondent No.3 is visiting the office
of the petitioner’s branches, frequently calling the officers of the
petitioner company to the Police Station under the pretext of the
crimes allegedly committed by one of the customers of the
petitioner i.e. respondent No.4. The respondent No.3 had been
interfering with the day-to-day business of the petitioner
indiscriminately. The petitioner is no way related to the FIR
registered or the offences said to have been committed by the
accused therein. The respondents without applying mind, in utter
violation of the rights of the petitioner and violation of the principles
of natural justice, have issued the impugned notice dated
21.12.2021.
5. It is submitted that the alleged de facto complainants.
who have lodged complaints with the respondent No.3,
are strangers to the petitioner company and the petitioner company
did not enter in to any transactions with them at any point of time.
The respondent No.4 opened the customer ID No.21480007013371
3
and transacting with the petitioner company on account basis.
The respondent No.4 had opened accounts on various dates with
the petitioner company. The petitioner company, being the NBFC,
is following the norms of the RBI. The records maintained by the
petitioner also revealed that the said pledges were accepted after
the compliance of the Know Your Customer (KYC) norms and the
verification of the relevant documents, as per RBI rules. The
respondent No.4, towards the KYC norms, submitted his voter’s
identity card issued by Election Commission of India, Ration Card,
Driving License and employee identity card issued by Hindustan
Shipyard.
6. It is submitted that the petitioner company had been strictly
adhering to the guidelines of the RBI for “Non-Banking Financial
(Deposit Accepting or Holding) Companies Prudential Norms
(Reserve Bank) Directions, 2007” and more particularly, Rule 17(A)
to Rule 17(D), which relate to loans against security of single
product – gold jewellery and safety and security measures to be
followed by Non-Banking Financial Companies lending against
collateral of gold jewellery.
7. It is submitted that the petitioner brought to the notice of the
police about the facts and the transactions of the loan account by
submitting all the copies of the documents. Despite the same,
4
the police started harassing the officers of the petitioner company
for surrender of the movable gold articles, which are under security
as pledge and insisting the petitioner company to bring the gold
articles, knowing fully well about the loan account. The action of the
respondents in issuing impugned order dated 21.12.2021 is clear
abuse of process of law and is an arm twisting method. It was
clearly stated in the impugned order dated 21.12.2021 that the
respondent No.4 is alleged to have been involved in the said crimes
and melted the gold and remade the gold ornaments and then
pledged the same with the petitioner company.
8. It is submitted that the petitioner company submitted all
documents to the police investigation purpose and extending full
cooperation for investigation. The de facto complainant and the
accused have joined hands in collusion and trying to mudsling the
petitioner for extortion and illegal gains. The alleged stolen gold
ornaments are not in the custody of the petitioner company.
The petitioner company has extended loan to the respondent No.4
since July 2021 to October 2021 on various dates for security and
on failure of repayment by its customer, the petitioner company has
every right to auction the security by following the due procedure
prescribed under the Non-Banking Financial (Deposit Accepting or
Holding) Companies Prudential Norms (Reserve Bank) Directions,
2007.
5
9. The respondent No.3, in his counter affidavit, stated the
respondent No.4 was involved as A1 in the following crimes.
i. Cr.No.249/2021 U/s. 356, 379 IPC of Thurur Police
Station, Mahabubabad District. The case is pending
trial vide CC.No.263/2022 on the file of the Hon’ble
Judicial Magistrate of First Class, Thorrur,
Mahabubabad District.
ii. Cr.No.47/2021 U/s. 394 IPC of Nellukunduru Police
Station, Mahabubabad District. The case is pending
trial vide CC.No.257/2022 on the file of the Hon’ble
Judicial Magistrate of First Class, Thorrur,
Mahabubabad District.
iii. Cr.No.64/2021 U/s. 356, 379 IPC of Nellikuduru Police
Station, Mahabubabad District. The case is pending
trial vide CC.No.38/2022 on the file of the Hon’ble
Judicial Magistrate of First Class, Thorrur,
Mahabubabad District.
iv. Cr.No.87/2021 U/s. 356, 380 IPC of Nellikoduru Police
Station, Mahabubabad District. The case is pending
trial vide CC.No.240/2022 on the file of the Hon’ble
Judicial Magistrate of First Class, Thorrur,
Mahabubabad District.
v. Cr.No.33/2021 U/s. 379 IPC of Peddavangara Police
Station, Mahabubabad District. The case is pending
trial vide CC.No.216/2022 on the file of the Hon’ble
Judicial Magistrate of First Class, Thorrur,
Mahabubabad District.
vi. Cr.No.63/2021 U/s. 356, 379 IPC of Dantharapally
Police Station, Mahabubabad District. The case is
pending trial vide CC.No.254/2022 on the file of the
6
Hon’ble Judicial Magistrate of First Class, Thorrur,
Mahabubabad District.
vii. Cr.No.125/2021 U/s. 356, 379 IPC of Dornakal Police
Station, Mahabubabad District. The case is pending
trial vide CC.No.160/2022 on the file of the Hon’ble
Judicial Magistrate of First Class, Mahabubabad
District.
10. It is submitted that in view of the above, the respondent
No.3 issued notice under Section 91 Cr.P.C. to the petitioner stating
that A1 mortgaged the gold ornaments with the petitioner company
and requested the petitioner company to return the stolen property
for the purpose of investigation. Except issuing notice to the
petitioner company, the respondent No.3, neither harassed,
threatened, interfered with the life, liberty and business of the
petitioner company nor has taken any coercive steps. The allegation
that the respondent No.3 visited the petitioner’s company branch
office at Khammam and harassed the employees of the petitioner
company is incorrect and baseless.
11. Mr. B. Ramesh, learned senior counsel appearing on behalf of
Mr. Gopala Rao Amancharla, learned counsel for the petitioner,
submitted that the petitioner company undertakes to cooperate
with the investigation and trial in all the criminal cases wherever
notice under Section 91 Cr.P.C. is issued to them for production of
pledged gold ornaments. The petitioner company is doing business
7
as per RBI guidelines under the Non-Banking Financial (Deposit
Accepting or Holding) Companies Prudential Norms (Reserve Bank)
Directions, 2007. The interference by the respondent-police is
illegal, arbitrary and violative of Articles 14, 19(1)(g) and 21 of the
Constitution of India.
12. Learned senior counsel placed reliance on the order passed
by the Madurai Bench of the Madras High Court dated 27.09.2023
in WP(MD).No.17697 of 2023 and WMP(MD).No.14785 of 2023 and
order passed by the High Court of Karnataka dated 19.08.2024 in
WP.No.11102 of 2024 and submitted that all the gold ornaments
will be produced by the petitioner company as and when the trial
Court and police direct them to produce. The petitioner company
may be permitted to keep the custody of the gold ornaments until
disposal of the criminal cases.
13. Mr. Mahesh Raje, learned Government Pleader for Home,
submitted that the writ petition is not maintainable. The police in
exercise of their power under Section 91 Cr.P.C. issued notice to the
petitioner to produce the stolen gold ornaments. There is no
allegation by the petitioner that the police do not have power to
issue such notice. Pending investigation and trial, it is premature for
the petitioner to contend that the gold ornaments pledged with
them do not have any connection with the complaint or the accused
8
persons. If any orders are passed by this Court it would cause
impediment to the investigation and trial and it will become a
precedent.
14. Learned Government Pleader for Home relied on the order
passed by the High Court of Madhya Pradesh at Jabalpur in
WP.No.22930 of 2022 dated 15.03.2023 and order passed by this
Court in WP.No.34022 of 2022 dated 13.08.2022.
15. Heard Mr. B. Ramesh, learned senior counsel appearing for
Mr. V. Gopala Rao Amancharla, Mr. J. Prabhakar, learned senior
counsel appearing for Ms. Kanumuri Kalyani, Mr. M. Sai Chandra
Haas, Mr. P. Sai Santhosh, Mr. Zubair Ahmed and Mr. B. Vikram,
learned counsel for the petitioners and Mr. Mahesh Raje, learned
Government Pleader for Home.
16. Incidentally, the petitioner-M/s. Manappuram Finance Limited
has filed several writ petitions before the High Court of Karnataka
challenging notice(s) issued under Section 91 Cr.P.C. The learned
Single Judge of the Karnataka High Court dismissed writ petitions
viz. WP.No.104593 of 2024 and batch by common order dated
27.09.2024. The learned Judge relied on several decisions of the
Supreme Court dealing with the power of seizure of the
Investigation Officer under Section 102 Cr.P.C. (Section 106
Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhitha, 2023). The power of the
9
Investigation Officer under Section 91 Cr.P.C and the relevancy of
Section 27 of the Evidence Act and other provisions of Cr.P.C were
also discussed in detail by the learned Judge. Further, the remedy
available to the parties (though not accused) under Sections 451 to
459 Cr.P.C. was also dealt with. The following observations of the
learned Judge in the said judgment, which will be useful for the
purpose of this batch of writ petitions, are extracted below:
“19. Having considered the material on record, it is very clear
that petitioners are the finance institutions and they have
advanced the loan amount pledging the gold ornaments in all
the cases and their contention is that they are the bonafide
receivers and hence, there cannot be any recovery and they
are ready to obey the conditions that may be imposed. It is
also the contention that Co-ordinate Bench of this Court
granted the relief as sought in the similar circumstances and
hence, this Court has to grant the relief.
…
27. … Having considered the said proviso, it is clear that the
domain of the Investigating Officer to seize any article upon
property suspected to have been stolen and in the case on
hand also committed robbery and stolen and pledged with the
petitioner and the same is not in dispute and also in connection
with the crime and the investigation is on and it is the domain
of the Investigating Officer to seize the same and report to the
superior if he is a subordinate officer and also report the
seizure to the Magistrate having jurisdiction to dispose of the
same and it is subject to speedy and natural decay. Hence, it is
clear that powers are vested with the Investigating Officer to
seize the same. This Court would also like to rely upon Section
59 of Cr.P.C. and it is to be noted that that no person who has
10been arrested by a police officer shall be discharged except on
his own bond, or on bail, or under the special order of a
Magistrate. Hence, it is clear that powers are vested with the
Investigating Officer and no courts shall also interfere with the
domain of the Investigating Officer.
28. This Court would also like to rely upon Section 27of the
Indian Evidence Act which deals with the information received
from the accused has to be proved which reads as follows:
27. How much of information received from accused may
be provedProvided that, when any fact is deposed to as discovered
inconsequence of information received from a person accused
of any offence, in the custody of a police-officer,
so much of such information, whether it amounts to a
confession or not, as relates distinctly to the fact thereby
discovered, may be proved.
29. Having read Section 27 of the Evidence Act, it is very clear
that when any fact is deposed to as discovered inconsequence
of information received from a person accused of any offence,
in the custody of a police-officer, so much of such information,
whether it amounts to a confession or not, as relates distinctly
to the fact thereby discovered, may be proved and in order to
prove the same, the Court has to take note of the discovery of
fact and also to take note of the voluntary statement made by
the accused and the same is not violation of Article 14 of the
Constitution of India and the Court has to take note of
evidentiary value of the statement made by the accused and
recovery and discovery of the fact. The fact as understood in
the Evidence Act includes physical as well as psychological fact
or mental condition and it leads to discovery of evidence to
hear the accused had given the
11stolen article is also a discovery of fact and it is the
responsibility of the Investigating Officer to state in evidence
about authorship of concealment/sale of material object if done
by accused and point out jewellary shop who purchased gold
and the said conduct is admissible under Section 27 of the
Evidence Act as held in the judgment of Ramachandran Vs.
State of Kerala [2009 CRl.L.J 168].
30. This Court would like to reply upon the recent judgment of
the Apex Court in the case of Babu Sahebagouda
Rudragoudar and others Vs. State of Karnataka [(2024) 8
SCC 149], wherein the Apex Court invoking Section 27 read
with Section 60 of the Evidence Act held that, recovery at
instance of accused, there must be compliance of necessary
requirements on part of the Investigating Officer. For invoking
Section 27, not only the statement under Section 27 must be
recorded in presence of two independent witnesses, but
recovery based on such statement should also be made in
presence of two independent witnesses. Thereafter, such
statement being basically a memorandum of confession of the
accused recorded during interrogation, confessional part of
such statement is inadmissible and only the part which
distinctly leads to discovery of fact is admissible in evidence.
Thus, while proving such statement before the Trial Court, the
Investigating Officer, held, must narrate what the accused
stated to him. Held, the Investigating Officer essentially
testifies about the conversation held between himself and the
accused which taken down into writing leading to the discovery
of incriminating facts. Under Section 60 of the Evidence Act,
oral evidence, held, must be direct and no secondary/hearsay
evidence, held, can be given in case of oral evidence, except
for the circumstances enumerated in the section itself.
…
12
35. Hence, it is clear that it is the duty of the petitioners who
run financial institutions also should not encourage the thief to
pledge repeatedly and it is their duty to enquire into the matter
and should not be hand in glove with the accused and having
responsibility to cooperate with the Investigating Officer for
investigation and assist for recovery at the instance of the
accused.
…
38. In the case on hand, it has to be noted the fact is
discovered at the instance of the accused and made the
voluntary statement that they pledged all the articles with the
petitioners and the Investigating Officer ought to have invoked
Section 102 of Cr.P.C. to seize the same and report the same to
his superior officers if he is subordinate and as per the new
insertion of proviso, the Investigating Officer has to report the
same to the concerned jurisdictional Magistrate but instead of
invoking Section 102 of Cr.P.C., the Investigating Officer has
committed an error in issuing notice invoking section 91 of
Cr.P.C. and Section 94 of BNSS.
…
40. This Court would also like to rely upon the judgment of the
Apex Court in the case of State of Maharashtra vs. Tapas D
Neogil [(1999) 7 SC 685] with regard to scope of Section 102
and police powers to seize the property. It held in paragraph 4
that a plain reading of subsection (1) of Section 102 indicates
that the Police Officer has the power to seize any property
which may be found under circumstances creating suspicion of
the commission of any offence. The legislature having used the
expression “any property” and “any offence” have made the
applicability of the provisions wide enough to cover offences
created under any Act. But the two preconditions for
applicability of Section 102(1) are that it must be ‘property’
13
and secondly, in respect of the said property there must have
suspicion of commission of any offence.
…
42. Having read these judgments of the Hon’ble Apex Court,
it is very clear that it is essential that the property sought to be
seized under Section 102(1) must have direct or close link with
the commission of offence in question. In the case on hand
also when the accused persons were apprehended and they
have made voluntary statement that stolen articles were
pledged with the petitioners, there is a clear, direct and close
link with the commission of offence in question. Under such
circumstances, the Investigating Officer has to invoke Section
102(1) and new Section 106(1) to seize the property when the
direct link between the tented property and the alleged
offences are committed and instead of invoking the said
provisions, invoked Section 91 which is erroneous and ought to
have invoked Section 102(1) and new Section 106(1) of BNSS.
…
44. Having considered the provisions which have been referred,
it is clear that if any such gold articles are seized at the
instance of the accused, then even the victim as well as the
person deprived of the possession can seek the interim custody
during the pendency of the case under Section 451 of Cr.P.C.
and Section 452 is clear that after the disposal of the case the
Court can take a decision to return the seized articles in the
crime connected and so also Section 453 is very clear with
regard to if any conviction is made if bonafide person lost the
property, even Court can give a direction to pay back the said
money to the bonafide loser of the value of the articles which
directly connected to the crime and so also Section 457 is also
very clear that procedure has to be adopted if no one claims
the possession, then the Court can issued proclamation and
dispose of the same. When such being the case, the very
contention of the petitioner’s counsel that the Investigation
14
Officer has to be prevented in seizing of the property and
taking any coercive action cannot be granted as sought by the
petitioners. Though the Coordinate Benches have granted such
relief and those orders are not in compliance of Section 102(1)
as well as Section 27 of the Evidence Act as well as the
procedure for releasing of the property which was seized under
Sections 451 to 459 of Cr.P.C. It has to be noted that under
Section 27 the property has to be seized at the instance of the
accused when he discloses the fact and when there is a
recovery and discovery of the particular fact and thing when
there is incriminating evidence available against the accused
who indulged in stealing of the property belongs to the victim
and the same has to be recovered at the instance of the
accused and the same amounts to an incriminating evidence
against the accused … Hence, I do not find any merit in the
petitions to pass such preventive order against the
Investigating Officer and the same is the domain of the
Investigating Officer which is nothing but interfering with the
powers vested with the Investigating Officer under Section 102
and 59 of Cr.P.C., the Court cannot prevent by passing such
orders against Investigating Officer.”
Discussion and Analysis:
17. Criminal law is set into motion with the registration of FIR
under Section 154 Cr.P.C. The police (Investigation Officer) is
vested with several powers under Cr.P.C. such as: recording
statement (under Section 161 Cr.P.C.); search (Section 93 Cr.P.C.);
arrest (Section 41 Cr.P.C.); summoning witnesses (Section 160
Cr.P.C.); issuing notice to witnesses (Section 91 Cr.P.C.); seizing
documents (Section 102 Cr.P.C.). It would be difficult for any Court
to lay down clear cut guidelines to be followed by the Investigation
15
Officer in matters relating to seizure of gold ornaments or valuable
items.
18. In the instant case, the petitioner-companies have extended
loan facility to their customers by taking pledge of gold ornaments.
In many of the above cases, there are allegations of theft.
According to the prosecution, the persons, some of whom are
accused, have committed theft of gold ornaments and thereby
pledged the ornaments with the petitioner entities. In some cases,
there is an allegation that the persons, who have pledged gold
ornaments, are in wrongful possession of gold ornaments and
pledged such ornaments for obtaining loans. The details of the FIRs
are as under:
FIR No FIR CONTENTS
WP/37182/2021 47/2021 Complaint registered U/s 394 IPC in
18.03.2021 Nellikudur PS, Mahabubabad
WP/41686/2022 482/2022 Complaint registered U/s 380 in
05.11.2022 Nacharam PS, Rachakonda
WP/6180/2023 72/2023 Complaint registered U/s 454 and 380
12.02.2023 IPC in Khammam 2 Town PS
WP/42682/2022 152/2022 Complaint registered U/s 394 r/w 34
12.11.2022 IPC.
42/2022 Complaint registered U/s 356, 379
21.03.2022 IPC.
968/2021 Complaint registered U/s 394, 307 r/w
20.09.2021 34 IPC.
840/2021 Complaint registered U/s 392 IPC.
26.08.2021
All four complaints have been filed in
Gummadidala PS, Sangareddy
WP/2368/2023 596/2022 Complaint registered U/s 457, 380 IPC
05.11.2022 in Hanamkonda PS, Warangal
315/2022 Complaint registered U/s 457, 380 IPC
17.09.2022 in Kakatiya University Campus PS,
16
Warangal
WP/31018/2023 180/2023 Complaint registered U/s 387, 506 r/w
08.08.2023 34 IPC in Film Nagar PS, Hyderabad
WP/83/2024 433/2023 Complaint registered U/s 457, 380 IPC
20.09.2023 in Osmania University City PS
406/2023 Complaint registered U/s 457, 380 IPC
02.10.2023 in Sangareddy Rural PS
1001/2023 Complaint registered U/s 457, 380 IPC
18.10.2023 in Kushaiguda PS
543/2023 Complaint registered with Osmania
27.11.2023 University City PS U/s 457, 380 IPC
WP/2418/2024 219/2023 Complaint registered U/s 379 IPC in
20.12.2023 Kondapur PS
[
WP/5675/2024 226/2024 Complaint registered U/s 392 IPC in
20.02.2024 Uppal PS
WP/7481/2024 191/2023 Complaint registered U/s 454, 380 IPC
15.08.2023 in Mathkal PS, Narayanpet
WP/8346/2024 92/2024 Complaint registered U/s 420, 506 IPC
06.03.2024 r/w 120 (B) IPC filed with CCS
WP/13233/2024 435/2024 Complaint registered U/s 380 IPC in
28.04.2024 KPHB Colony PS
WP/16060/2024 1033/2023 Complaint registered U/s 381 IPC in
04.10.2023 Ranjendranagar PS
WP/21206/2024 251/2024 Complaint registered U/s 306 BNS with
30.07.2024 Bandlaguda PS
WP/23253/2024 244/2024 Complaint registered U/s 408,420 IPC
12.07.2024 in Narayanguda PS
WP/25844/2024 881/2024 Complaint resgistered U/s 305 BNS in
04-09-2024 Rajendranagar PS, Cyberabad
19. The case of the petitioner-companies is that they are strictly
following the guidelines and norms issued by the RBI and other
relevant laws in pledging gold and that it would be difficult for them
to recover loans if gold ornaments, which have been received by
them as security, is taken over/seized by the Investigation Officer.
It is their contention that trial in usual course takes long time and
17
as huge quantity of gold is involved, since the petitioners have
better facilities like safety lockers, they would undertake to keep
the pledged gold in their safe custody and will not be alienated till
conclusion of trial and will be produced before the trial Court as and
when called upon. In that regard reliance is placed on Madurai
Bench of the Madras High Court dated 27.09.2023 in
WP(MD).No.17697 of 2023 and WMP(MD).No.14785 of 2023 and
order passed by the High Court of Karnataka dated 19.08.2024 in
WP.No.11102 of 2024. The Madurai Bench held as under:
“14. As the respondent police are not intending to seize the
jewels, this petition is disposed of with the following
directions:-
1. The petitioner company is directed to keep all the gold
jewels as described in the petition intact with the petitioner
company itself in safe custody;
2. The petitioner company shall not sell or auction all the
gold jewels without permission of the Court;
3. The petitioner company shall produce these gold jewels
as and when directed by the respondents police during the
course of investigation if at all the police intend to conduct
Test Identification Parade or for any other similar purpose;
4. The petitioner company shall also produce the gold jewels
before the Court in case the trial Court directs the petitioner
company to produce them during the course of trial;
5. The trial Court is directed not to consider application
under Section 451 of Cr.P.C. and is directed to pass
appropriate orders at the time of disposal of the main case
in Crime No.27 of 2023 in respect of disposal of the property
under Section 452 of Cr.P.C. If at all any application is filed
under Section 451 of Cr.P.C., the trial Court shall issue
18notice to the petitioner company before considering the
same;
6. In case, if the petitioner company or the respondents
police aggrieved by the orders passed under Section 452 of
Cr.P.C. by the learned Magistrate, then the aggrieved party
can approach the appropriate Court to challenge the same;
and
7. The gold jewels should be photographed at the cost of the
petitioner company and a list is to be prepared and the
same is to be signed by the petitioner company.”
20. The High Court of Madhya Pradesh in WP.No.22930 of 2022
dated 15.03.2023 held as under:
“8. Question before Court is whether petitioner company
exercising its rights under agreement with accused can
retain gold jewellery despite notice of Investigating Officer
under Section 102 of the Cr.P.C.?
Section 24 of the Contract Act lays down as under:-
“24. Agreements void, if considerations and
objects unlawful in part.- If any part of a single
consideration for one or more objects, or any one or
any part of any one of several considerations for a
single object, is unlawful, the agreement is void. ”
9. No right is created in favour of petitioner company to
retain the jewellery as said jewellery is subject matter of
crime and agreement between petitioner company and
accused which has been secured on basis of fraud and
misrepresentation, is void under Section 24 of the Contract
Act, therefore, petitioner in aid of said agreement cannot
refuse to obey the notice given by concerned police station
under Section 102 of the Cr.P.C. Further petitioner company
has not diligently taken care for proper verification of gold
jewellery. Documents of ownership of gold was not checked
19
by petitioner company and only on basis of declaration, gold
loan was given.
This Court in WP.No.34022 of 2022 dated 30.08.2022 held as
under:
“11. According to the confessional statement of the
accused, the crime property is with the petitioner company.
In these circumstances, under Section 91 Cr.P.C, the
respondent police have every authority and jurisdiction to
issue such a notice. When once the police have got
jurisdiction, this court is not concerned with the other issues
raised by the petitioner and further coming to the interim
order passed by the Hon’ble Apex Court in Special Leave
Petition No.4351 of 2022, it is an interim order wherein the
order passed by the XXXIII Additional Metropolitan
Magistrate, Malkajgiri, Cyberabad is stayed. What is the
order passed by that court and how is it relevant to the facts
of the case. No material is placed before this court. Hence,
this court is not in a position to consider the said order and
apply the same to the facts and circumstances of this case.”
21. It is needless to state that the Investigation Officer has
prerogative to seize the gold ornaments for the purpose of
investigation, whenever there is a suspicion regarding ownership of
gold and information is received by him during investigation that
the persons, who are alleged of theft or any other offences, have
wrongfully gained custody of the gold and deposited the same with
the petitioner/financial institutions. It would not be possible for this
Court to issue general directions to the police officers to follow a
particular pattern or line of investigation in matters relating to theft
20
of gold ornaments. However, in individual cases where the
jurisdiction of the Investigation Officer is questioned and a case is
made out where there is no link established between the alleged
offences and gold ornaments pledged with the financial institutions,
the High Court may interfere depending on the merits and fact
situation. Without examining the cases on individual merit, if any
interim orders of general nature are passed by this Court,
bypassing the provisions of Cr.P.C., even when effective alternate
remedy under Cr.P.C. (Section 451/457 Cr.P.C.) is available, it will
not only lead to confusion but also unwanted litigation, which is
avoidable.
22. It is not only that the petitioner-companies have alternate
remedy before the trial Courts under Sections 451 and 457 Cr.P.C.,
but further remedy is also available before the Sessions Court and
High Court under Section 397 or Section 482 Cr.P.C., as the case
may be. It is not the case of the petitioner-companies that the
police officers have acted without any jurisdiction. The petitioners
have not made out any case warranting exercise of jurisdiction of
this Court in Writ jurisdiction.
23. It needs to be noted that the trial Court can pass orders for
release of gold ornaments by considering the difficulty that would
be faced by the petitioner-companies, who have lent loans on
21
pledge of gold. The Karnataka High Court in WP.No.104593 of 2024
and batch dated 27.09.2024 has taken a view that the Investigation
Officer ought to have issued notice under Section 102 Cr.P.C. and
not under Section 91 Cr.P.C. The learned Judge formed such an
opinion based on several judgments of the Supreme Court as
discussed above. Manappuram Finance Limited, who is the
petitioner herein, is also the petitioner therein and the facts are
also similar and this Court concurs with the judgment of the
Karnataka High Court in WP.No.104593 of 2024 and batch order
dated 27.09.2024.
24. However, despite this Court holding that the Investigation
Officer has power under Section 102 Cr.P.C. and not under Section
91 Cr.P.C., this Court is no inclined to grant any relief to the
petitioners. The respondent police/Investigation Officers are given
liberty to seize gold articles from the petitioners by complying with
the procedure under Section 102 Cr.P.C. The petitioners are also at
liberty to file applications under Section 451/457 Cr.P.C. for release
of seized gold articles, which shall be decided by the Magistrate
concerned in accordance with law and in the light of the
observations made herein.
22
The writ petitions are dismissed. The miscellaneous petitions,
if any pending, shall stand closed. There shall be no order as to
costs.
____________________
B. VIJAYSEN REDDY, J
December 17, 2024
Note: LR copy to be marked
(B/o) DSK
[ad_1]
Source link