Revision petition filed under section 397 C.R.P.C dismissed for not having locus standi – Manipur high court
A criminal revision petition was filed by the Central Bureau of Investigation (CBI) praying to set aside the impugned Zima order passed by learned Special Judge (P.C. Act) Imphal East in Cril. Misc. (Zima) Case No. 2 of 2021 and Cril. Misc. Case No. 9 of 2021 allowed the respondents to get their articles and property released on special demands. this petition was heard by a single bench of HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE AHANTHEM BIMOL SINGH in the case of Central Bureau of Investigation (CBI) versus Yumnam Sharat Meitei and Ors (Cril. Rev. Petn. No. 7 of 2021)
The learned counsel appearing on behalf of the respondents raised an issue questioning the maintainability of the revision petition on the basis that the CBI seized the property without following due process of law provided under Section 18 A of the Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988 read with section Section 3 and 4 of the Criminal Law Amendment Ordinance 1944 and claiming that the CBI has no locus standi to object to the Zima application filed by the respondents or to file the present revision petition challenging the impugned Zima order passed by the learned Special Judge (P.C. Act), Imphal East. to support the following contentions the counsel relied on the judgment of “Ratan Babulal Lath Vs. the State of Karnataka” reported in 2021 (3) Crimes 339 (S.C.)
The learned counsel appearing on behalf of petitioners contends that under Section 102 Cr.P.C., any Police Officer is empowered to seize and kept it under custody any property which may be alleged or suspected to have been stolen or which may be found under circumstances that creates suspicion of the commission of any offenses including offenses under the Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988 and the counsel relied on the judgments of “State of Maharashtra Vs. Tapas D. Neogy” reported in (1999) 7SCC 685 and of “Teesta Atul Setalvad Vs. the State of Gujarat” reported in (2018) 2 SCC372.
The court decides that the properties of the respondents have been seized without following the provisions laid down under the Criminal Law Amendment Ordinance, 1944. Accordingly, the seizure of the properties of the respondents is not sustainable and finds the preliminary force in the objection raised by the respondents and has no locus standi. The present revision petition is found not maintainable.
Judgment reviewed by Naveen Sharma