In cases of seized property, custody should be given to the person from whom it was seized or in whose name it stands registered, and ownership disputes are to be resolved by the Investigating Agency.

This Criminal Revision Petition is directed against the impugned order dated 7-6-2012, passed by the Learned Chief Judicial Magistrate, South and West Sikkim at Namchi, in Criminal Misc. Case No. 38 of 2012, by which the custody of a vehicle (Bolero-SLX) bearing Registration No. JH-10/W5769 seized in a case registered under Section 379/34, IPC in Police Case No. 9/(5)2011 dated 7-5-2011 was handed over to the Respondent No. 2.

2. The grievance of the Petitioner is that the seized vehicle is owned and registered in his name with Registration No. WB-38Y-9283 which had been stolen in the night of 24-2-2011 from a premises at Durgapur, West Bengal, in respect of which he had lodged a FIR in the Durgapur N. T. S. on 24-2-2011. It is further the case of the Petitioner that he was informed of the seizure of the vehicle under a fake registration number at Rabongla by a letter from the Rabongla Police Station. Immediately after this, he approached the Rabongla P. S. for recovery of the vehicle where he was informed that it had been handed over to the Respondent No.2 by the Court of the Learned Chief Judicial Magistrate by its order dated 8-9-2011. On being so informed, the petitioner had approached the Court of the Learned Chief Judicial Magistrate for release of the vehicle by filing an application under Section 451, Cr. P. C. on 3-5-2012 but the learned Chief Judicial Magistrate by the impugned order dated 7-6-2012 was pleased to reject the application primarily on the ground that disturbing order dated 8-9-2011 in Criminal Misc. Case No. 91 of 2011 would amount to reviewing his own order.

3. Mr. Sujoy Chakraborty, learned Advocate for the petitioner, submits that the petitioner is the registered owner of the vehicle and is, therefore, entitled to its possession under Section 451, Cr. P. C. As per him, this fact stands established by the letter dated 13-9-2011 of the Rabongla Police Station, by which it had been acknowledged that he was the owner of the stolen vehicle. His ownership of the vehicle is also supported by Vehicle Registration Certificate issued by the Motor Vehicles Department, Asansol, filed as Annexure P-1 to the petition. It is further his submission that the registration in favour of the Respondent No.2 has been found to be a fake one, which is apparent from the letter of the District Transport Officer at Ranchi dated 12-9-2011 addressed to the Officer-in-charge, Rabongla Police Station. Mr. Chakraborty also has referred to the original Registration Certificate by placing it before this Court to show that the Petitioner is indeed the registered owner of the questioned vehicle. As per him, the learned Chief Judicial Magistrate ought to have allowed his application and placed the vehicle in his custody and, if for any reason doubts had arisen in respect of its ownership, direction ought to have been issued to the Investigating Agency for enquiry on this aspect. Finally it was urged that at least the matter deserved to be remanded to the learned Chief Judicial Magistrate for his consideration afresh. Accordingly, appropriate directions were sought for.

4. Mr. J. B. Pradhan, the learned Additional Advocate General who is also the Public Prosecutor, submits that there is no error in the impugned order, inasmuch as, the order under Section 451, Cr. P. C. is interim in nature and it does not in any manner pass on the ownership of the vehicle to the Respondent No.2. He submits that the Investigating Officer of the case has already taken steps to enquire into this aspect and necessary correspondences are being made to the appropriate authorities. Since the vehicle has been properly secured which is the object of Section 451, Cr. P. C., the Criminal Revision Petition would not be maintainable.

5. Mr. A. K. Upadhyaya, learned Senior Advocate appearing on behalf of the Respondent No. 2, submits that the vehicle has been secured by the impugned order by, inter alia, obtaining a bond of Rs. 5 lakhs from the Respondent No.2 with