Ornaments In Police Custody Were Replaced By Fake Ones: Madhya Pradesh High Court Directs Further Investigation Even After Acquittal Of Accused

The appellant approached the High Court challenging a direction passed in a Writ Appeal.

The Single Bench of Justice Gurpal Singh Ahluwalia and Justice Anuradha Shukla held, “In the present case, there are serious allegations against Sub Treasury, Jaura, District Morena and other Officers in whose custody gold ornaments were kept and gold ornaments were replaced by fake ornaments. If such things are allowed to happen specifically when the ornaments were in the custody of Police/Court, then it is an exceptional circumstance where this Court must exercise its extraordinary jurisdiction under Article 226 of the Constitution of India to direct further investigation even after acquittal of accused”, it added.

Government Advocate Sohit Mishra represented the State while Advocate Sandeep Singh Bhadauria represented the respondent.

Factual Background

The Respondent had filed a Writ Petition seeking quashing or correcting the impugned order and directing the respondents to hand over the original property/ornaments made of gold to the petitioner or give the present market value of those ornaments, which were seized by the police and kept in the custody of J.M.F.C, Jaura to the petitioner. A theft took place in the respondent’s house in which ornaments of gold and silver belonging to the respondent's niece and the sister-in-law, lying in a suitcase and box, were stolen by unknown thieves after breaking the wall of the premises. The FIR of theft was lodged immediately after the incident. During investigation, Police arrested the accused persons and seized the stolen ornaments as per various seizure memos. All the accused persons were acquitted by the JMFC, and it was observed that the property be handed over to the complainant/respondent after expiry of the period for filing appeal. Manmohan preferred an appeal before the Sessions Judge.

The respondent also preferred an appeal against the judgment passed by JMFC before the Court of Sessions, Morena. The appeal filed by Manmohan, as well as, respondent, were consolidated and were remanded back for necessary action. Thereafter, the trial Court passed another order directing that the ornaments mentioned in the seizure memo may be returned to the complainant. Manmohan filed a suit. In the original case, it was found that the ornaments kept in the custody of the State Government had been replaced by fake ornaments and, accordingly, they were not accepted by the respondent. Under these circumstances, a petition was filed to quash the order passed by JMFC as well as for handing over original property/ornaments made of gold to the respondent. The Single Bench dismissed the Petition while the appeal was disposed of by an order deleting certain observations made by the writ Court, but affirming the direction to the Crime Investigation Department of Police to register an appropriate case against the accused persons.

Reasoning

On a perusal of the facts of the case, the Bench noted that although gold ornaments were recovered and seized by the Police and were kept in Sub Treasury, Jaura, but when the box was opened, it was found that they were replaced by fake ornaments. “Therefore, it is clear that the original articles must have been replaced by somebody by fake ornaments”, it added.

The Bench further clarified, “It is made clear that this Court is not intending for directing further investigation against the accused who has been acquitted because if such a direction is given then it would amount to double jeopardy which is not permissible in law.” On a perusal of various precedents of the Apex Court, the Bench held that in special circumstances, the Court can direct for further investigation not qua the accused who has been acquitted, but to find out the real culprit.

The Bench thus held that further investigation qua the accused who was acquitted was not permissible as it would amount to double jeopardy. “Since direction to the CID to register case was passed as the fact that FIR in relation to same offence has already been registered and trial is pending was not disclosed, therefore, this Court is of considered opinion that the said direction requires modification”, it stated.

The Bench concluded the matter by directing the CID to take up the matter for further investigation in the case registered under sections 409, 120B of IPC. “However, it is made clear that the acquitted accused person namely Narendra Kumar Mahor shall not be subjected to any interrogation or further investigation as it would violate his fundamental right of protection against double jeopardy”, it ordered.

Cause Title: J.M.F.C Joura v. Shyam Singh S/O Shri Balvant Singh (Neutral Citation: 2026:MPHC-GWL:21703)

Click here to read/download Order