B. Kemal Pasha, J.

On 04.08.2015, the Circle Inspector of Police, Iritty, intercepted a car, searched the body of two persons, who were travelling by the car, and consequently seized three gold bars weighing 3 kgs. from the possession of the driver of the car. In the inspection of the car, a secret chamber was traced out, from which Indian currency notes worth Rs. 1,10,00,000/- were seized. The Inspector of Police, registered crime No.1014/2015 under Sections 41(1)(d) and 102 Cr.P.C.

2. The Inspector of Police, without delay, reported the matter to the nearest Magistrate's Court, which is the court below, and also produced the entire materials seized, before the said court.

3. Claims were filed by the petitioner herein, as Crl.M.P. 3325/2015, and the Superintendent of Customs, Customs Preventive Unit, Thalassery as Crl.M.C. 3308/2015. The court below through Annexure 7 order dismissed Crl.M.P.No.3325/2015 and allowed Crl.M.P. No. 3308/2015. Based on Annexure 7, the court below released the said three gold bars in question to the Superintendent of Customs, Customs Preventive Unit, Thalassery. The said orders are under challenge through this Crl.M.C. filed by the petitioner.

4. Heard the learned counsel for the petitioner Sri. C.P. Mohammed Nias, the learned Public Prosecutor for the first respondent and the learned counsel Sri. Sasthamangalam S. Ajithkumar for 2nd and 3rd Respondents.

5. It seems that both the aforesaid Crl.M.Ps. were filed by the petitioner as well as the Superintendent of Customs under Section 451 Cr.P.C. The court below, has in fact, allowed Crl.M.P.No.3308/2015 by considering the matter also as one coming under Section 451 Cr.P.C.

6. At the same time, it seems that Section 451 Cr.P.C. has no application at all in the present matter at this stage. As per Section 451 Cr.P.C., when any property is produced before any criminal court during an 'inquiry or trial', the court may make such order as it thinks fit for the 'proper custody' of such property pending the conclusion of the 'inquiry or trial'. Therefore, the stage of the proceedings contemplated under Section 451 Cr.P.C. is either inquiry or trial. The court can deal with the said question under Section 451 Cr.P.C. by deciding the person as to whom the said property is to be released to the "proper custody". Such stage should be at the stage of an 'inquiry or trial' and such 'proper custody' also should be pending the conclusion of the 'inquiry or trial'. If the stage of inquiry is over and the court decides to conduct the trial, then the stage of trial comes. In proceedings in which the matter terminates at the culmination of inquiry, the stage under Section 452 Cr.P.C. comes. On the termination of the trial, definitely the stage under Section 452 Cr.P.C. comes into play.

7. At the stage under Section 452 Cr.P.C., the court has to decide as to who is the person "entitled to possession". What is contemplated under Section 452 Cr.P.C. is the termination of the inquiry or trial. When the proceedings terminates on the conclusion of inquiry, then also Section 452 Cr.P.C. comes into play. When the proceedings end in trial, then also Section 452 Cr.P.C. comes in, and in such case the court has to decide not with regard to the "proper custody"; whereas the court has to decide the person who is "entitled to possession".

8. In cases wherein the seizure of property by any police officer is reported before 'the Magistrate' under the provisions of the Code of Criminal Procedure, and the said property is not produced before 'a Criminal Court' during the inquiry or trial then, the stage under Section 457 Cr.P.C. comes. Under Section 457 Cr.P.C. also the court has to decide as to who is the person "entitled to possession" thereof.

9. As rightly pointed out by the learned counsel for the 2nd respondent, there is no inquiry or trial before the court below in this case and therefore, the petitioner is not entitled to claim custody of the property under Section 451 Cr.P.C. The