SupremeToday Landscape Ad
Back
Next
Judicial Analysis Court Copy Headnote Facts Arguments Court observation
Listen Audio Icon Pause Audio Icon
judgment-img

S.PADMANABHAN
Yadav Agencies Pvt. Ltd. – Appellant
Versus
Philomina – Respondent


M/s. N. P. Samuel & P. V. Chandramohan, Advocates - For the petitioner.

JUDGMENT

S. Padmanabhan, J. - An order passed under Section 451 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, here-in-after referred to as 'the Code', as distinguished from one passed under Section 452 of the Code, is undoubtedly an interlocutory order. It is actually not a disposal of property, but only an arrangement for proper custody pending conclusion of trial or enquiry. Disposal of property by destruction, confiscation or delivery to any person claiming entitlement to possession or otherwise arises only at the conclusion of trial. Sale or otherwise disposing of property pending trial under Section 451 of the Code will arise only if it is subject to speedy or natural decay or if otherwise, the Court thinks it expedient to do so and that too, if necessary, after recording such evidence required. Normally, though not in all cases, preservation of property pending trial is necessary because it may be required for the purpose of evidence, identification or otherwise during trial. An order Section 451 of the Code does not settle the title or even right to possession. Refusal of claims to custody under Section 451 does not preclude the person in an enquiry under Section 452 of the Code. It is

Click Here to Read the rest of this document
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
SupremeToday Portrait Ad
supreme today icon
logo-black

An indispensable Tool for Legal Professionals, Endorsed by Various High Court and Judicial Officers

Please visit our Training & Support
Center or Contact Us for assistance

qr

Scan Me!

India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!

For Daily Legal Updates, Join us on :

whatsapp-icon telegram-icon
whatsapp-icon Back to top