In a significant ruling, Justice Vinod Diwakar of the Allahabad High Court directed the Additional Chief Judicial Magistrate (ACJM), Jaunpur, to reconsider his interpretation of Supreme Court guidelines while handling the case of Deepak Kumar vs. State of U.P. The court emphasized that if the ACJM still struggles to understand the legal framework, he should consider undergoing a refresher course to better grasp the Supreme Court’s directives on evidence management and property de-sealing.
Case Background
The case stems from an FIR lodged against Bijendra and others under Sections 419, 420, and 471 of the Indian Penal Code and Section 15 of the Indian Medical Council Act. The charges include allegations of operating an unauthorized clinic from the premises owned by the applicant, Deepak Kumar, without necessary government approvals. The clinic was run under the supervision of Dr. Ram Prakash Singh, a government doctor, who allegedly rented the house from Kumar for this purpose.
In response to the FIR, the Investigating Officer sealed Kumar’s house, deeming it to be involved in the unlawful activities mentioned. Deepak Kumar subsequently filed an application before the trial court, requesting the de-sealing of his property. However, the ACJM, Jaunpur, rejected this plea on June 3, 2024, citing concerns that releasing the house and its contents might alter the nature of the evidence involved.
Important Legal Issues
The key legal issue revolves around the interpretation and application of Section 451 of the Criminal Procedure Code (CrPC) and the Supreme Court’s ruling in Sunderbhai Ambalal Desai vs. State of Gujarat (2002). The Supreme Court had laid down clear guidelines regarding the release of property seized during investigations, advocating that such property should not be kept in police custody unnecessarily if it can be released to a responsible party with due safeguards.
The High Court observed that the ACJM failed to correctly apply these principles, leading to an unjustified refusal to de-seal Kumar’s property. Justice Diwakar noted that a proper inventory of the goods, followed by their release to the applicant under a surety bond, would not have altered the nature of the evidence.
Court’s Observations
In a scathing critique of the trial court’s decision, Justice Diwakar stated, “It is disturbing that the trial court has failed to understand how the nature of evidence could be changed if the house is de-sealed after making a proper inventory of the goods lying in the house and is handed over to the Investigating Officer.” He further emphasized that if the ACJM continues to struggle with understanding these legal principles, he should consider attending a refresher course.
Justice Diwakar suggested, “If the learned ACJM needs clarification due to a lack of understanding of the Supreme Court’s guidelines, a request may be placed to the Registrar General of this Court through the learned District Judge, Jaunpur, so that appropriate direction may be issued to the Judicial Training and Research Institute for his refresher course.”
This observation is notable as it highlights the judiciary’s commitment to ensuring that judicial officers are well-versed in legal principles, especially when their misunderstanding can lead to the miscarriage of justice.
The High Court ultimately disposed of the application with directions to the ACJM to re-evaluate the matter in light of the Supreme Court’s guidelines and the observations made by the High Court itself. Justice Diwakar directed that the application be decided within one week from the date of the High Court’s order.
Case Details
– Case Title: Deepak Kumar vs. State of U.P. and Another
– Case No.: Application U/S 482 No. 23191 of 2024
– Bench: Justice Vinod Diwakar
