Order.- This petition filed under section 483 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, is directed against the order dated 15th October, 1977 passed by the Judicial Magistrate First Class III Court, Mangalore, in F.I.R. No. 164 of 1977.

2. The said order has been passed by the learned Magistrate on an application filed by the petitioner under sections 451 and 457 of the Criminal Procedure Code, in regard to handing over possession of tourist motor-car bearing registration No. KLC 7420.

3. The necessary facts are that the Ullal police had seized the car for alleged offences under sections 62, 86 and 87 of the Karnataka Forest Act, 1963 (to be hereinafter referred to as the Act), read with sections 379 and 411 of the Indian Penal Code. The car was covered by an inter-State permit to carry passengers as a tourist taxi from Kasargod to Mangalore. Ullal police reported the seizure to the Magistrate. On coming to know of that, the petitioner filed the application. But in the meanwhile, on receipt of the report of seizure and on the request made by the police for permission to produce the car and the properties before the authority empowered under section 71-A of the Act, the Magistrate had granted permission.

4. On considering the application filed by the petitioner, the Magistrate ruled that the power in regard to disposal of property was with the authorities prescribed under sections 71-A and 71-B onwards of the Act and as such the application of the petitioner was. Not maintainable before him.

5. Sri. A. Ananda Shetty, learned Advocate appearing on behalf of the petitioner, prayed that he may be permitted to argue this petition as a criminal revision petition and stated that the petition had been filed under section 482 of the Criminal Procedure Code, in November, 1977 when the law whether a revision petition would be competent or not as against such orders, was not settled, and the same has seen recently settled by the Supreme Court to the effect that a revision petition is competent and the bar contemplated by section 397 (2) of the Criminal Procedure Code, would not be applicable. Permission is granted.

6. Though the petitioner had filed the application under sections 451 and 457 of the Criminal Procedure Code, it is to my mind plain that section 451 would not be applicable to the facts of the case because only the report of seizure of the car and the forest produce had been sent to the Magistrate, and no enquiry or trial in regard to these offences, was pending before the Magistrate. Moreover, the property concerned was not produced before the Magistrate.

7. Section 457(1) of the Criminal Procedure Code, is necessary to be looked into. It reads as follows:

“457. Procedure by police upon seizure of property.-(1) Whenever the seizure of property by any police officer is reported to a Magistrate under the provisions of this Code, and such property is not produced before a criminal Court during an inquiry or trial, the Magistrate may make such order as he thinks fit respecting the disposal of such property or the delivery of such property to the person entitled to the possession thereof, or if such person cannot be ascertained, respecting the custody and production of such property”.

Plain reading of the section shows that the power under section 457 of the Criminal Procedure Code, can be exercised by a Magistrate whenever seizure of property is made under the provisions of the Criminal Procedure Code, by any police officer and the report is made under the provisions of the Criminal Procedure Code. In the case on hand, it is apparent that the report of seizure has been made to the Magistrate by virtue of section 62(3) of the Act, which reads as follows:

“Every officer seizing any property under this section shall place on such property or the respectable or vehicle (if any) in which it is contained, a mark indicating that the same has been so seized, and shall, as soon as may be make a report of such seizure to the Magistrate having jurisdictio

Click Here to Read the rest of this document