An order passed by a trial court under Section 452 of the Code of Criminal Procedure for disposal of property, which is not set aside by the appellate court, stands as it is and a fresh application under Section 452 at the instance of the accused persons is not maintainable.

DEEPAK MISRA, J.

( 1 ) IN this appeal under Section 454 of the Code of Criminal Procedure (hereinafter referred to as 'the Code') the appellants call in question the validity of the order dated 7-7-93 passed by the learned Addl. Sessions Judge, Jaipur in Criminal Misc. Case No. 1/93 refusing to exercise jurisdiction under Section 452 of the Code.

( 2 ) THE present appellants along with one Pramila Patnaik faced trial under Sections 304-B, 498-A and 306 of the Indian Penal Code (in short, 'the IPC') in S. T. Case No. 239/54 of 1989 and were ultimately convicted for the said offences by the learned trial Judge and sentenced to undergo rigorous imprisonment for 8 years under Section 304-B, IPC. No separate sentence was awarded for the other charges. It is relevant to state here that the learned trial Judge while convicting the accused persons and sentencing them as aforesaid had given directions in respect of the seized articles directing that if the parties were desirous of establishing their claim over the seized properties they should approach the Civil Court within the period of limitation after reaching of the finality of his judgment, failing which the seized articles would be forfeited to the State after a year from the last date of the period of limitation was over. An appeal was carried to this Court forming the subject matter of Criminal Appeal No. 239/90 wherein this Court allowed the appeal and set aside the conviction and sentence but did not pass any order relating to the direction made in respect of the seized articles.

( 3 ) AFTER the judgment of this Court the present appellants filed an application under Section 452 of the Code with the prayer that the seized articles should be handed over to them as they were entitled to the same, for they were seized during investigation from their custody. It is pertinent to mention here that some of the seized articles were given in zima of P. W. 1, the father of the bride. 'the said application was resisted to by the Public Prosecutor contending that the same should be disposed of as per the order passed by the said Court on earlier occasion as that part of the order has been affirmed. The learned Additional Sessions Judge after referring to the judgment delivered in S. T. Case No. 238/54 of 1989 and the judgment passed in the criminal appeal by this Court came to hold that as the appellate Court had not passed any order for disposal of the properties the direction given at the first instance in relation to the disposal of the seized properties has been affirmed and, therefore, he has no jurisdiction to deal with the matter.

( 4 ) MR. D. P. Dhal, the learned counsel for the appellants has contended that the order passed by the learned Addl. Sessions Judge is erroneous inasmuch as this Court in effect had set aside the foundation on which the direction was issued by the Court below and, therefore, refusal to adjudicate under Section 452 of the Code amounts to non-exercise of jurisdiction vested in him under law. Mr. S. S. Das, the learned counsel for the State has supported the impugned order on the grounds which have been referred to therein.

( 5 ) IT is apparent that while convicting the accused persons the learned trial Judge had issued the direction for disposal of the seized properties by taking into consideration the prohibition contained under Section 4 of the Dowry Prohibition Act and the rival claims. It is worthwhile to reproduce the said direction :-"p. W. 6 seized all the marriage articles and left in zima of father-in-law of Subasini and P. W. 7 reseized it and left it in the zima of P. W. 1. On a motion being made by accused persons on 7-2-90, the Court directed the production of the articles which were committed to the Court of Sessions. In the instant case P. W. 1 acted in contravention of the Dowry Prohibition Act and is equally an accomplish to the giving of dowry. It is not a case that the accused persons demanded further dowry after the marriage. All