The main legal point established in this judgment is that the court has the discretion to make orders for interim custody of property under Section 451 of the Cr.P.C, and the property seized by the police should be released to the original owner as soon as the necessity to retain it ceases.

ORDER :

This petition is filed challenging the order passed by the learned Magistrate rejecting the application filed by the petitioner under Section 451 of the Cr.P.C seeking interim release of the vehicle bearing Registration No.KL 01 CP 3649. The petitioner had also filed an application for return of the original RC which is stated to be pending.

2. Crime No.921 of 2022 of the Nooranad Police Station was registered inter alia under Sections 489A, 489B, and 489C of the IPC. As the aforesaid vehicle was involved in the crime, the vehicle was seized, and the same was produced before the court. The petitioner filed an application for interim custody of the vehicle as C.M.P No.3180 of 2023. However, the learned Magistrate, taking note of the fact that the allegations are grave and the offence is non-bailable and triable by a Court of Session, rejected the application.

3. Heard the learned counsel appearing for the petitioner who submitted that in the light of the law laid down by the Hon’ble Supreme Court in Sunderbhai Ambalal Desai v. State of Gujarat [2022 (10) SCC 283], there is no justification on the part of the learned Magistrate in dismissing the application and submits that no purpose would be served in keeping the vehicle in custody.

4. I have considered the submission advanced, and I find some merit in the submissions advanced by the learned counsel.

5. Section 451 of the Cr.P.C. empowers the criminal court to make orders for interim custody of the property produced before it during trial and inquiry. When the property is produced before the criminal court, regarding the nature of the property so produced, the criminal court has the discretion to make such order as it thinks fit for the proper custody of such pending conclusion of enquiry or trial. When the property, which has been the subject matter of an offence, is seized by the police, it ought not to be retained in the custody of the Court or of the police for any time longer than what is absolutely necessary. As the seizure of the property by the police amounts to a clear entrustment of the property to a Government servant, the idea is that the property should be restored to the original owner after the necessity to retain it ceases.

6. For releasing the vehicle, the Court may follow the procedure of recording such evidence, as it thinks necessary, as provided under Section 451 Cr.P.C. The bond and security should be taken so as to prevent the evidence from being lost, altered, or destroyed. It would be the function of the Court under Section 451 of the Cr.P.C. to impose any other appropriate condition. (See Sunderbhai Ambalal Desai v. State of Gujarat [AIR 2003 SC 638].

7. The aspect of possession and the right of possession alone had to be considered by the court below in the ordinary course. Furthermore, the powers under Section 451 Cr.P.C. should be exercised expeditiously and judiciously as it would serve various salutary purposes. The Court below ought to have realized that the owner of the article would not suffer because of its remaining unused or by its misappropriation. The Court or the police would not be required to keep the article safe in custody, and further, if the possession of the article is handed over after preparing a proper mahazar, the same could have been used in evidence instead of its production before the Court during the trial.

8. Having considered the relevant aspects, I am unable to sustain the order passed by the learned Magistrate.

9. This petition will stand allowed, and the impugned order is set aside. The learned Magistrate is directed to consider the matter afresh taking note of the above observations and the guidelines issued by the Apex Court in Sunderbhai (supra).