Revision against an interlocutory order not maintainable.

An order passed under Section 451 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, hereinafter referred to as ‘the Code’, as distinguished from one passed under Section 452 of the Code, is undoubtedly an interlocutory order. It is actually not a disposal of property, but only an arrangement for proper custody pending conclusion of trial or enquiry. Disposal of property by destruction, confiscation or delivery to any person claiming entitled to possession or otherwise arises only at the conclusion of trial. Sale or otherwise disposing of property pending trial under Section 451 of the Code will arise only if it is subject to speedy or natural decay or if otherwise, the Court thinks it expedient to do so and that too, if necessary, after recording such evidence required. Normally, though not in all cases, preservation of property pending trial is necessary because it may be required for the purpose of evidence, identification or otherwise during trial. An order Section 451 of the Code does not settle the title or even right to possession. Refusal of claims to custody under Section 451 does not preclude the person in an enquiry under Section 452 of the Code. It is only an interim arrangement pending enquiry or trial subject, at any rate, to further orders under Section 452 after conclusion of enquiry or trial, if not earlier pending enquiry or trial itself. It is true that in case of rival claims, eventhough preservation and upkeep are the main considerations, other factors such as right to possession, who is best entitled to possession etc. may be consideration. Even an enquiry under Section 452 of the Code, though conclusive in connection with the criminal proceeding, strictly it is also not a final disposal as between rival claimants because it is always subject to final decision by a competent civil Court, which alone could decide the rival claims to title finally. Either under Section 451 or under Section 452 of the Code, there can be instances when the criminal Courts may be inclined to refuse disposal of property pending decision by a civil Court. A person is given custody under Section 451 only as a representative of the Court bound by terms of entrustment to act according to the directions. An order under Section 451 is therefore only an interlocutory order and it is not subject to revision as enjoined by Section 397(2) of the Code.

2. Though an interlocutory order has not been defined in the Code, there is little doubt that it is one pending lis and before final hearing on the merits. It may be one made to achieve some purpose for the progress of the case. Anyhow it is something other than a final order or judgment subject to modification, reconsideration or fresh disposal at a later stage in the proceedings. If the order disposes of the dispute finally so far as the proceeding is concerned, it is a final order even though passed during the pendency of the proceeding. Meaning given to a final order is the same irrespective of the nature of the proceeding, whether civil or criminal. The test is whether so far as the Court passing the order is concerned, the controversy is finally settled.

3. In this Criminal Revision Petition, the controversial question is whether the impugned order is interlocutory or final. If it is a final order the revision will lie, otherwise not. For solving that question a little bit of facts are necessary. The first respondent is the hirer of a diesel vehicle under hire purchase agreement with Jaya Bharath Credit and Investment Co. Ltd., hereinafter called ‘the Company’, Petitioner and one Jamal are the agents of the Company. On account of default in payment of instalments, at the instruction of the Company, Jamal seized the vehicle from the petitioner under the terms of the hire purchase agreement. The first respondent filed a criminal complaint against Jamal and got the vehicle seized by an order of the Court. Thereafter both the petitioner and the first respondent filed petitions under Section 451 of t