Read Supreme Court judgment or go for refresher course: Allahabad High Court to trial judge

The Allahabad High Court recently took strong exception to a trial court’s refusal to de-seal a house that was used to run a pathology center without the approval of the government [Deepak Kumar vs State of UP and Another]

The High Court in 2018 had directed the trial court to give the possession of the house to its owner in accordance with law after handing over the goods/medical equipment inside it to a responsible person. The house had earlier been sealed by the Investigating Officer. 

However, the trial court on June 3 this year rejected the house owner’s application with the observation that goods lying in the house are case property and if they are handed over to anyone, it may change the nature of evidence.

In an order dated August 23, Justice Vinod Diwakar said that the reasoning given by the Additional Chief Judicial Magistrate-IVth of Jaunpur District was disturbing.

“It is disturbing that the trial court has failed to understand as to how the nature of evidence could be changed if the house is desealed after making a proper inventory of the goods lying in the house and is handed over to the Investigating Officer, even to the extent if the goods are released to the accused persons-owner of the medical equipment and other articles- against the execution of proper surety bond equivalent to the value of the seized goods against the proper inventory as suggested by order of Supreme Court in Sunderbhai Ambalal Desai Vs. State of Gujarat, (2002) 10 SCC 283,” the Court said.  

The Court then directed the trial judge to read and understand the Supreme Court’s judgment in which the top court had issued directions for release or disposal of articles seized by the police during investigation.

It also asked the judge to read Section 451 of the Code of Criminal Procedure (CrPC) which deals with the custody and disposal of case property during pendency of trial.

It went further to suggest that in case the judge still does not understand the issue, he may seek a refresher course for himself.

“If still learned ACJM needs clarification because of having lack of understanding to read and understand Sunderbhai Ambala Desai's case (supra), may place a request to the Registrar General of this Court through learned District Judge, Jaunpur so that appropriate direction may be issued to the Judicial Training and Research Institute for his refresher course,” ordered the Court.

In the present case, the Police had registered an FIR in April 2017 on the allegation that one Ajay, who was a tenant at the house, was illegally running a pathology centre from the place. The house was then sealed.

Though the High Court in December 2018 had given relief to the house owner and present petitioner Deepak Kumar, he again had to move the Court as his application for possession of the house remained pending before the trial court.

In April this year, the High Court set a deadline of three months for the trial judge to decide the application. The trial court rejected it on June 3, leading to the present case before High Court.

Advocate Awadhesh Kumar Malviya represented the petitioner.

[Read Order]