Goutam Bhaduri, J.

1. This is an appeal against the order dated 14/03/2013 whereby the appellant/accused No. 15 is aggrieved by the para 33 of order. Para 33 is reproduced hereunder:

^^¼33½ tIr’kqnk gkbZMªk dzsu eukst dqekj feJk ds lqiqnZuekuksa ij gS] eks-lk- panu ‘kekZ ds lqiqnZukesa ij gS ,oa lsUVªksdkj nhyhi lkMaxh ds lqiqnZukesa ij gS blfy;s buds lqiqnZukesa ij gh jgsxhA ekeys esa tIr lHkh laifRr;ksa dk bl fu.kZ; }kjk fujkdj.k ugha fd;k tk jgk gS] D;ksafd vU; vijk/khx.k Qjkjk gSA Qjkj vijkf/k;ksa ds fu.kZ; ds le; gh tIr laifRr;ksa dk fujkdkj.k fd;k tkosxkA**

The brief facts of the case is that Sessions Trial No. 95/2011 i.e. the State of Chhattisgarh Vs. Jairam and 18 others was tried under Section 395, 397, 120-B, 342 IPC that offence were committed by the 18 accused. In the said sessions case, the 15 accused were tried who were available. The remaining 3 accused could not be tried. After the trial the 15 accused, who were tried in the Sessions trial were acquitted, while remaining 3 accused continued to be absconded. Therefore, the learned court below while passing the final order at the conclusion of the trial reserved/restrained to pass any order on the seized maruti vehicle and did not decide it on the ground that the vehicle which was seized could not have been disposed of as few of the accused were still absconding. Learned counsel for the appellant submits that for the relevant vehicle initially the custody was ordered for during trial but the same could not be complied by the applicant.

2. Learned counsel for the appellant submits that initially the application to get the vehicle i.e. Maruti Car C.G. 12/6761 was made before the JMFC which was rejected by an order dated 11/07/2011. The said order was subject of challenge in criminal revision before sessions trial by the applicant and the court of sessions by order dated 31/10/2011 had ordered to return the vehicle with condition to furnish bank guarantee of Rs. one lakh and surety of Rs. three lakhs. Since the applicant could not furnish the same, this was also subject of challenge in Cr.M.P. 758/2011 before the High Court. The High Court by its order dated 21/11/2011 ordered for interim custody of the vehicle and reduced, the bank guarantee amount of Rs. one lakh to Rs. 25,000/- and in place of surety of Rs. three lakhs, Rs. one lakh surety was ordered for. The applicant too also could not fulfill such conditions and the trial under Section 395, 397, 120-B, 342 of IPC continued before the court of sessions. The court of sessions by order dated 14/03/2013 had concluded the trial and in respect of seized vehicle had ordered as per para 33 which has been reproduced here in above in this case.

3. These fact are also not disputed by the State counsel.

4. Para 33 of the order purports that the other seized vehicle i.e. hydra crane was ordered to remain in possession of Manoj Kumar Mishra who had obtained the custody of it. The motorcycle which was given to the custody of one Chandan Sharma and one Santro Car which was in the custody of Dilip Sadangi was continued to be ordered to be held by them. The learned court below further has ordered that in respect of the other properties which was seized by the police was ordered to be remain in status quo position. Reasons were stated for this that since few of the accused were absconding in the case as such the court deferred to decide the custody of the said vehicle i.e. Maruti Car C.G. 12/6761. It was further ordered that custody will be decided when the absconded accused are apprehended/arrested and as and when their cases are tried the fate of the custody of the seized properties shall be decided. Meaning there by the custody of the vehicle is Maruti vehicle was remained as it is since the applicant initially could not obtain the custody of vehicle for non compliance of conditions of delivery of vehicles. Now it is an admitted fact that the trial in sessions court is concluded.

5. Section 452 of Cr.P.C. makes provision