An order under Section 451 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, which empowers a criminal court to make such order as it thinks fit for the proper custody of the property produced before it during any inquiry or trial, pending conclusion of the inquiry or trial, is an interlocutory order and is not subject to revision under Section 397(2) of the Code.

Headnote:
CRIMINAL PROCEDURE CODE - SECTION 451 - ORDER FOR INTERIM CUSTODY OF PROPERTY - INTERLOCUTORY ORDER - REVISION - SECTION 397(2) - INHERENT POWER OF HIGH COURT - SECTION 482 - SCOPE.
Fact of the Case:

The petitioner, the wife of the deceased, filed a complaint with the police alleging that the respondent, the younger brother of her deceased husband, had stolen all the articles of her deceased husband from his place of work. The police registered a case and seized the articles. The respondent filed an application for the return of the seized goods, contending that he was the rightful owner. The Magistrate rejected the application and directed that the articles be released to the petitioner on her furnishing a Superdaginama. The respondent went in revision to the Sessions Court, which set aside the Magistrate's order and directed that the seized articles be returned to the respondent.
Finding of the Court:

The High Court held that an order under Section 451 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, which empowers a criminal court to make such order as it thinks fit for the proper custody of the property produced before it during any inquiry or trial, pending conclusion of the inquiry or trial, is an interlocutory order and is not subject to revision under Section 397(2) of the Code.
Issues: Whether an order under Section 451 of the Code of Criminal Procedure is an interlocutory order and is not subject to revision under Section 397(2) of the Code.
Ratio Decidendi: The High Court held that an order under Section 451 of the Code of Criminal Procedure is an interlocutory order because it does not decide or affect the right of the rival claimants in the instant case. The order is made during the progress of the inquiry or trial for a specific purpose i.e. interim custody of the property produced before the Court. It is a different thing that while doing so the Court may, inter alia, take into consideration as to who is the person prima facie entitled to its possession but that would not mean that any party is entitled to interim custody of the property as of right.
Final Decision: The High Court allowed the revision petition, set aside the impugned order of the Sessions Court, and restored the order of the Magistrate directing entrustment of the custody of the property in question to the petitioner.

( 1 ) THE facts relevant to the decision of this petition succinctly are that Zamir Ahmed, deceased husband of the petitioner, was a motor mechanic and was having his place of work near Inter-State Bus Terminal, Delhi. He used to repair shock absorbers and do other auto jobs in the repairs of motor vehicles etc. and he had kept his goods including shock absorbers, tools and implements in a box at the place of his work. He died on 7th March 1983 under misterious circumstances as bodies of both Zamir Ahmed and his son Anis Ahmed aged about 19 years were found floating in river Yamuna. On 20th December, 1983, the petitioner lodged a report with the Assistant Commissioner of Police, Sadar Circle, Delhi that the respondent, who is younger brother of her deceased husband, had stolen all the articles viz. shock absorbers, tools and implements etc. of her deceased husband by removing the box containing the same from the place of work of the deceased to his own house at 1074, First Floor, Kishanganj (Teliwara ). A case was registered being FIR No. 745/83, Police Station Kashmere Gate, under S. 379 Indian Penal Code (hereinafter referred to as ipc ) against the respondent on the basis of the said report and search of the aforesaid house of the respondent was effected on 22nd December, 1983. As a result of the house search of the respondent, 170 big sized shock absorbers, 30 small sized shock absorbers, some tools and implements and the box containing the goods etc. were recovered and seized by the Police. On completion of the investigation the police filed a charge-sheet against the respondent on 9th June, 1984.

( 2 ) THE respondent moved an application dt. 26th September 1984 for return of the seized goods to him contending that he was rightful owner thereof and the same had no connection whatsoever with the alleged theft. He also pointed out that there was likelihood of the said goods being damaged in the event of the trial protracting over a long period and he would suffer irreparable loss on that account. The said request was opposed by the complainant-petitioner, who asserted that the goods in question belonged to her deceased husband Zamir Ahmed and had been stolen by the respondent from the place of his work taking advantage of her helplessness.

( 3 ) THE learned Magistrate vide order dt. 28th November, 1984 rejected the application of the respondent and directed that the articles be released to the complainant Smt. Anisa Begum on her furnishing Superdaginama in the sum of Rs. 5,000/ -. Feeling aggrieved the respondent went in revision in the Court of Session. It was heard by an Additional Sessions Judge who vide impugned order dt. 8th February, 1985 set aside the aforesaid order of the Metropolitan Magistrate and directed that the seized articles be returned to the respondent-Masoom Ali. Hence, this revision petition by the complainant-petitioner against the aforesaid order of the Additional Sessions Judge.

( 4 ) THE controversy between the parties lies in a narrow compass, the crucial question for determination being whether the custody of the seized articles be entrusted to the complainant-petitioner or the accused-respondent pending conclusion of the trial. However, the learned counsel for the petitioner has at the outset assailed the impugned order as being without jurisdiction in view of the bar contained in S. 397 (2) of the Criminal P. C. (hereinafter referred to as the Code ). S. 397 (1) of the Code empowers the courts specified therein viz. the High Court/sessions Court to call for the records of inferior criminal court and examine them for the purpose of satisfying themselves as to whether a finding or order of such inferior court is legal, correct or proper or whether the proceedings of such inferior courts are regular. The said provision is very widely worded and the obvious object of conferring powers of revision is to give superior criminal courts a supervisory jurisdiction in order to prevent miscarriage of jus

Click Here to Read the rest of this document

1985 Supreme(Del) 417

High Court Of DelhiANISA BEGUM - AppellantVersusMASOOM ALI - RespondentCRIMINAL REVISION 33 of 1985Decided On : 11/08/1985

Cases Referred (10)

High Court Of Delhi
ANISA BEGUM - Appellant
Versus
MASOOM ALI - Respondent
CRIMINAL REVISION 33 of 1985
Decided On : 11/08/1985