TMI Blog1959 (11) TMI 67X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ed to the District Magistrate that certain parcels, letters and money-orders had been received and were being received by the post office at Bulandshahr in the name of the company which were required in connection with the investigation that he was carrying out. On 28-5-1958 the District Magistrate passed an order under Section 95 of the Cr. P. C., but that order was quashed in part by this Court on 16-10-1958. Soon after that on 31-10-1958 the opposite party No. 2 passed an order which reads thus: Whereas an investigation for offences under Sections 420/406 I. P. C. is being carried out by Sri Dwarka Singh, Detective Inspector, C. I. D., Investigation Branch, Agra, against the firms M/s Textile Traders Syndicate. Bulandshahr and New Saraswati Sugar Mills, Bulandshahr which are reported to be bogus firms and whereas letters and parcels etc. have been and are being received in your office (office of the Post Master, Bulandshahr) addressed to the aforesaid firms and offences have been and are being committed in respect of the same and whereas in my opinion sudi letters and parcels etc., are necessary and are wanted for the purposes of the aforesaid investigation. I, S.N. Me ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ich the charge-sheet was Submitted. 6. So far as the second objection is concerned, the learned counsel who appears for the State concedes its force. Section 94 authorises the court or investigating officer to require a 'person' who has in his possession or power a document or thing necessary or desirable for the purposes of investigation to produce that document or thing. That section does not apply to a document, parcel or thing in the custody of the Postal or Telegraph authorities. Section 95 was, therefore, enacted to provide the same powers in respect of documents, parcels or things in the custody of the Postal or Telegraph authority. Those authorities cannot be directed to produce the document or thing in court or before the investigating officer. They can only be directed to deliver this to a person nominated by the Magistrate, or court or to detain them pending order. The two sections must be read and interpreted together as they form one group. It is, therefore, obvious that the documents and things contemplated by Section 95 are those which are necessary tar the purpose of investigation, inquiry, trial or other proceeding and are in the custody of the postal ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... us: Any police officer may seize any property which may be alleged or suspected to have been stolen, or which may be found under circumstances which create suspicion of the commission of any offence. Such police officer, if subordinate to the officer in charge of a police station, shall forthwith report the seizure to that officer. 10. The words emphasised and relied upon on behalf of the applicant are seize and property . The argument is that the use of these words shows that what was contemplated by the section was movable property of the nature mentioned in the section which could actually be seized by the police officer. Here the police officer has not actually seized any property. What he has done is that he has directed the bank with, which the applicant had an account not to pay any amount out of that account to the applicant till further orders. The question is whether such an order could be passed under Section 550 of the Code already quoted and can amount to seizure of property. 11. According to its dictionary meaning the word seize means to lay hold of suddenly or forcibly; to take hold of; to reach and grasp; to clutch . It was meant to take possessi ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... rs to have been no amount or money which could have been seized. When the applicant opened an account with the bank he gave some money to the bank. The money could not be claimed by him in specie. The money could be utilized by the bank in any manner it likes. The only liability which the bank undertook was that it agreed that whenever the applicant demanded it would pay him an equivalent sum either in full or in part. The bank really became a debtor of the applicant to that extent. It was not necessary for it to keep any money always in hand in anticipation of any demand to be made by the applicant, When the applicant actually made a demand it could procure the necessary amount from anywhere and pay it to the applicant. In the circumstances it cannot be said that there was any 'property' with the bank of which actual physical possession could be taken. Section 550 does not appear to contemplate a police officer prohibiting the payment or a debt by a debtor to the accused person. If that can be done it may create unnecessary complications. For instance, if after stealing ₹ 1,000/- an accused person lends it on a mortgage or a bond to some one who borrows it for ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... efore, appears to me that the applicant is correct in his contentions that the orders passed under Section 550 of the Code by the police officer could not be passed under that provision and must be quashed on that account. 18. It is prayed that action be taken against the opposite parties for circumventing and violating the order already passed on 16-10-1958. I am, however, not satisfied that any such violation of the order of that date has been made by the opposite parties as calls for any action. The orders now being questioned are independent orders-passed after the earlier application had been decided. In the earlier application some portions of the order questioned had been quashed but no directions had been issued which could be disobeyed. Therefore, there can be no question of violating or disobeying those orders. This prayer cannot, therefore, be granted. 19. In the result the applicant succeeds passed on 24-10-1958, a copy of which is annexure 'C' of the application, is quashed. The order passed by the District Magistrate opposite party No. 2 on 31-10-1958 is quashed to this extent that it cannot apply to letters or parcels received after the date of the orde ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
