A criminal court has jurisdiction under Section 452(1) of the CrPC to order the return of seized property to the person from whose possession it was seized, even if there is a dispute over ownership, which should be decided by a civil court.

( 1 ) THIS revision petition under Section 397 read with Section 482 of the Cr. P. C. is against orders dated 16. 11. 94 and 4. 1. 95 passed by the Additional Sessions Judge, Delhi in E. C. A. Case No. 21/94. The impugned order dated 16. 11. 94 says that 761 gas cylinders given on superdari to Hindustan Petroleum Corpn. Ltd. may be returned to Manmohan Arora. Feeling aggrieved with that order the Hindustan Petroleum Corpn. Ltd. moved an application for review but the same was rejected by the impugned order dated 14. 1. 95. It was again ordered that 741 gas cylinders be returned to Manmohan Arora.

( 2 ) THE revisionist is Hindustan Petroleum Corpn. Ltd.

( 3 ) IN this revision petition, a legal plea has been raised that the aforesaid cylinders could not have been returned to Manmohan Arora because under Section 452 of the Cr. P. C. , the Court had no jurisdiction to pass such an order. The grounds taken are two-fold, firstly, that the cylinders belong to the revisionist and secondly that when there was a special Act, namely, the Essential Commodities Act, to deal with the cylinders seized then the learned lower Court could not have passed an order under Section 452 of the Cr. P. C. which is a general law.

( 4 ) THE facts of the case are that Manmohan Arora was prosecuted under the provisions of the Essential Commodities Act on the grounds that he had spurious cylinders with him. Certain cylinders were taken in custody from him. It is an admitted fact that Manmohan Arora has been acquitted of all the charges and the order of acquittal has attained finality. It is also not disputed that the Collector under the provisions of the Essential Commodities Act, did not confiscate the seized cylindes. The orders of the Collector are at Annexure 0 to the petition wherein it was observed that actual ownership of LPG cylinders is that of the Hindustan Petroleum Corpn. Ltd. , but as there was dispute between the said Corporation and Shri Manmohan Arora in the matter of distributorship, the seized essential goods (namely, the cylinders, iyingin the custody of Hindustan Petroleum Corporation Ltd. shall remain in the custody of Hindustan Petroleum Corpn. Ltd. as "amanat" till the FIR case is finally decided by the Court of Competent Jurisdiction. In Para 13 of the order the Collector further says that his orders were being passed without prejudice to any orders that may be passed by the Court of Competent Jurisdiction pending in the FIR No. 389/93 dated 10. 6. 93 under Section 7 of the Essential Commodities Act.

( 5 ) ON perusal of the aforesaid order of Collector, it would appear that the Collector had left everything to be decided by the Competent Criminal Court and had not confiscated the cylinders though he had such powers under the Essential Commodities Act. The result is that the articles seized were left to be dealt with by the Criminal Court. Learned Counsel for the petitioner in order to advance his argument that the learned lower Court had no jurisdiction to pass any orders in respect of the cylinders inquestion, relied on AIR 1977 Supreme Court, p. 2255 (Remo Paulaltoe v. Union of India ).

( 6 ) IN that case, conviction was made, sentence was given and the goods involved in the case were confiscated by the Magistrate. The High Court confirmed conviction as well as confiscation. Special Leave Petition was filed in Supreme Court. There the contention of the appellant was that special provisions of the Customs Act regarding the confiscation of goods seized under that Act make the general law as to disposal of property contained in Section 452 (1) of the Cr. P. C. inapplicable in respect of such goods. The Hon ble Judges of the Supreme Court did not find necessary to give their opinion on the aforesaid contention and decided the case on other grounds. Their Lordships observed that there was no necessity or occasion for the Court to make an order for disposal of property and that the order of the Magistrate that the goo