The court established that criminal courts have the power to grant permission to sell case-property under Section 451 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, if the property is subject to speedy and natural decay or if it is otherwise expedient to do so. The court also emphasized the need to balance the interests of the property owner and the prosecution, and the importance of preserving evidence for trial.

1. This Criminal Original Petition has been directed by the petitioners to set aside the order of dismissal passed by the learned Judicial Magistrate, Thiruvottiyur, in Crl.M.P.No.6638 of 2013 refusing permission to sell the case-property.

2. The first petitioner, namely, 'Lenovo India (p) Ltd., T.Nagar, Chennai', engaged 2nd petitioner, namely, 'Indev Logistics (p) Ltd, a Clearing and Forwarding Agent, to deliver 954 numbers of Lenovo Desktop Computers, 291 numbers of Lenovo Laptop Computers and 293 numbers of Lenovo Laptop Computers, at a particular place.

3. On 4.9.2013, the second petitioner loaded the consignment in a vehicle. It was driven by one Radhakrishnan. But, the consignment did not reach its destination.

4. On 6.09.2013, Joseph, the Manager of second petitioner complained to police. A case in Crime No.1070 of 2013 for an offence under Section 406 IPC has been registered as against the said Radhakrishnan. In the course of investigation, besides him some more persons having been concerned in this crime came to light. The Investigation Officer seized the said goods. He produced them under Form-95 before the learned Judicial Magistrate, Thiruvottiyur.

5. Joseph filed Crl.M.P.No.6241 of 2013 under Section 451 r/w 457 Cr.P.C. before the said Magistrate, seeking return of the said goods. A top official of the first petitioner gave no objection in favour of the second petitioner.

6. On 23.9.2013, the learned Magistrate, directed return of the goods to the second petitioner, imposing the following conditions.:-

(i) Petitioner shall take a photograph of the case property and hand over it to the court.

(ii) Petitioner shall produce the original Invoice and Bills to the Court.

(iii) Petitioner shall execute a bond for the value of case property with one surety.

(iv) Petitioner shall not alter/tamper/mortgage/pledge the property till the disposal of the case.

(v) Petitioner shall undertake to produce the property as and when directed by the Court/I.O.

7. As directed, original invoices and the bills were produced. Viswanatham Gandla, filed surety affidavit offering property worth Rs.5 crores. The goods were (colour) photographed with compact disc. They were handed over to the Court.

8. Subsequently, Mohhan, Manager of the first petitioner filed Crl.M.P.No.6638 of 2013 under Section 451 Cr.P.C., seeking permission of the Court to sell the said goods.

9. In para-9 of his affidavit, the said Mohhan has stated as under:-

"9. I submit that the goods now in the custody of the second petitioner are being held on behalf of the owners, viz., the first petitioner herein to whom the second petitioner is bound to hand over, as the second petitioner is only a carrier acting on behalf of the first petitioner. The goods themselves have been imported for the purpose of immediate sales as they are subject to deterioration and immediate loss of value due to the ever-innovative electronic market. The goods, if kept for just a few months would not fetch even half the price. It has therefore become necessary that in order to mitigate the losses, both by way of lying useless or by way of damages that may arises out of contracts for sale entered into which have to be mitigated at all costs. There would otherwise be a possibility of a huge financial loss."

10. The Investigation Officer objected to it since the investigation is pending.

11. On 4.10.2013, the learned Magistrate, dismissed the petition on the following premises.

"6. The scope and spirit of the provision of law enumerates that perishable goods which are not likely to withstand the course of trial could be sold. Moreover our Hon'ble Apex Court and High Court, Madras has laid down the principle that combustible materials, vehicles which are likely to suffer damage could be sold. But the facts of decisions relied on by the learned counsel does not apply to the facts of the instant case.

7. In the case on hand originally an application for return of property was fil