The jurisdiction of the Magistrate to release seized property under Section 451 Criminal Procedure Code is not affected by the exclusive trial jurisdiction of the Sessions Judge.

1. - This petition has been filed under Section 482 Criminal Procedure Code against the order dated 16-6-1993 passed by the learned Munsif and Judicial Magistrate, Pipar City in FIR No. 107/1993 Police Station Pipar City State v. Shobha Ram and Ors. under Section 307 Indian Penal Code which is still pending investigation whereby he dismissed the petitioner's application for releasing his Motor Cycle No. R.P Z. 2401 on Supardginama on the ground that the offence under Section 307 Indian Penal Code was exclusively triable by the Sessions Judge.

2. I have heard learned counsel for the petitioner and the learned P.P. and perused the relevant record.

3. It is an admitted position that the Investigating Officer in his report has specifically mentioned that the said vehicle is not reduired for investigation purposes and that the same may be given on Supardginama. Under Section 451 Criminal Procedure Code, when any property is produced before any Criminal Court during any enquiry or trial, the Court is empowered to make such an order as it thinks fit for the proper custody of such property pending the conclusion of the enquiry or trial. The explanation with this Section lays down that the property of any kind or document, which is produced before the Court or which is in its custody and/or any property regarding which an offence appears to have been committed or which appears to have been used for the commission of an offence.

4. In the instant case, admittedly the said vehicle was seized by the Investigating Officer and taken in his custody because the said vehicle pertained to commission of an offence. In such circumstances, the M.J.M. had jurisdiction to exercise discretion in releasing the said vehicle on Supardginarna or on any other terms. Simply because the offence under which the vehicle was seized/recovered by the Investigating Officer was exclusively triable by the Court of Sessions, the jurisdiction of the Magistrate is not taken away and the same does not come to an end under section 451 Criminal Procedure Code for passing necessary orders for custody and disposal of such property pending enquiry or trial

5. The investigation of the trial is likely to take considerable time and during the said period, keeping the aforementioned vehicle in police custody will not be conducive for the purposes of the trial. On the other hand, it will damage its tyres and other parts. It is not in dispute that the petitioner is the registered owner of the said vehicle. Therefore, in such circumstances. the learned Magistrate has not exercised his jurisdiction judiciously. On the other hand, the impugned order tantamounts to the abuse of the process of the Court and as such the same deserves to be quashed

6. In the result, I allow this Misc. petition, quash the impugned order dated 16.6.93 and order that the seized Motor Cycle No. R.P.Z. 2401 be released on Supardginama in favour of the petitioner provided he executes an undertaking and furnishes a solvent security in the sum of Rs 20.000/-- to the effect that he shall produce the said vehicle before the Investigating Officer or before the trial Court on each and every date of hearing and whenever ordered to do so till the final disposal of the criminal case and that he will neither sell nor transfer nor alienate the said vehicle during this periodPetition allowed accordingly.

*******