The Allahabad High Court recently expressed strong disapproval of a trial court’s decision to refuse the de-sealing of a house that had been used to operate a pathology center without government approval [Deepak Kumar vs. State of UP and Another].
In 2018, the High Court directed the trial court to return possession of the house to its owner while ensuring that the medical equipment and goods inside were handed over to a responsible person. The house had previously been sealed by the Investigating Officer.
However, on June 3 of this year, the trial court denied the owner’s application, stating that the items inside were case property, and that handing them over could compromise the integrity of the evidence.
In an order dated August 23, Justice Vinod Diwakar described the trial court’s reasoning as “disturbing.” He stated, “It is concerning that the trial court failed to grasp how the nature of evidence could be altered if the house is de-sealed after an accurate inventory of the goods is made and handed over to the Investigating Officer. This could include releasing the items to the accused, the owner of the medical equipment, against a proper surety bond corresponding to the value of the seized goods, as outlined in the Supreme Court’s decision in Sunderbhai Ambalal Desai Vs. State of Gujarat, (2002) 10 SCC 283.”
The Court directed the trial judge to familiarize himself with the Supreme Court’s judgment, which provides guidance on the release or disposal of articles seized during police investigations. It also instructed him to review Section 451 of the Code of Criminal Procedure (CrPC), which governs the custody and disposal of case property while the trial is ongoing.
Furthermore, the Court suggested that if the trial judge continued to have difficulties understanding the matter, he should consider enrolling in a refresher course. “If the learned ACJM still requires clarification due to a lack of understanding of Sunderbhai Ambalal Desai’s case, he may request the Registrar General of this Court through the learned District Judge of Jaunpur to facilitate his enrollment in a refresher course at the Judicial Training and Research Institute,” the Court ordered.
In this case, the police had registered an FIR in April 2017 against Ajay, a tenant of the house, for allegedly running an illegal pathology center. Following this, the property was sealed. Although the High Court provided relief to the house owner, Deepak Kumar, in December 2018, he was compelled to return to court as his application for possession remained pending.
In April, the High Court set a three-month deadline for the trial judge to make a decision regarding the application, but the trial court rejected it on June 3, prompting the current case before the High Court.
Advocate Awadhesh Kumar Malviya represented the petitioner in this matter.
