The interpretation of Section 457(1) of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973.

N. C. Talukdar, J. :- The point involved in this Rule is one of law, raised in the backdrop of the new Code of Criminal Procedure. To be more precise, the point relates to the interpretation of Section 457 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973.

2. The backdrop of facts necessary for the consideration of the point at issue is a short one. On 18-4-74 at about 10.45 p.m. three persons boarded a taxi, bearing No. WBT 7316, on the Diamond Harbour Road near about the Calcutta Hospital and while taxi was proceeding towards the Esplanade, passing by the side of the Race Course, one of those three persons all of a sudden directed the claimant-petitioner to stop the taxi. As soon as the taxi was stopped, the three occupants threatened the claimant-petitioner at the point of a dagger and snatched away about Rs. 80/- from him. Thereafter they pushed him out of the taxi which was driven away by them. The claimant-petitioner proceeded to the Hastings Police Station and reported the incident whereupon a case started, being Hastings Police Station Case No. 93 dated 19-4-74, under S. 384/34, I.P.C. The taxi in the meanwhile was found abandoned, with some parts missing, on the Lee Road on 19-4-74 by another taxi driver, one Bant Singh, who brought the taxi back to the Hastings Police Station where it is now lying in the open compound. The claimant-petitioner, who is the registered owner of the taxi, possessing the requisite documents, applied before the learned Chief Metropolitan Magistrate for returning the vehicle to him on a requisite bond inter alia on the ground that the car was being damaged and he was suffering heavy loss daily. On the 28th April, 1974, an application was filed before the officer-in-charge, Hastings Police Station for delivering the taxi to the claimant-petitioner on a bond or for submitting a report to the learned Chief Metropolitan Magistrate, Calcutta. A report was ultimately submitted stating inter alia that the relevant papers produced by the claimant-petitioner, Ambika Roy, were found to be correct on verification and it ultimately recommended that there was no objection if the learned Chief Metropolitan Magistrate was pleased to deliver the taxi to its registered owner, directing him to produce the vehicle before the Court on call. On the next date, namely the 2nd May, 1974 an application was filed before the learned Chief Metropolitan Magistrate, Calcutta, reiterating the prayer for returning the taxi but the same was also rejected not on merits but on the purported ground that Section 457(1) of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 on proper interpretation did not apply to the facts of the present case. This order has been impugned and forms the subject-matter of the present Rule.

3. Mr. Barendra Nath Sur, Advocate, appearing on behalf of the claimant-petitioner, made a short submission, namely that the learned Chief Metropolitan Magistrate, Calcutta had erred in rejecting the application made on behalf of the claimant-petitioner on a misinterpretation of the provisions of Section of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 although he was otherwise satisfied on the merits of the case. Mr. Ajay Nath Mukherjee, Advocate, appearing on behalf of the State contended that the provisions of a new Code may raise some difficulties in interpretation but, by and large, the meaning of the provisions incorporated in Section 457, are clear. He conceded, in his fairness, that in the facts and circumstances of the present case he can have no objection to the taxi being returned to the claimant-petitioner on adequate terms and conditions.

4. The point involved is one of law, relating to the interpretation of Section 457 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 and for a proper consideration thereof, a reference has to be made in the first instance to the provisions of the statute. Chapter XXXIV of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 lays down provisions for disposal of property. The corresponding chapter in the Code of Cr