Back
IN THE HIGH COURT OF ALLAHABAD
B. L. Yadav
MAHESH PAL SINGH - Appellant
Versus
POORAN SINGH TEWARI AND STATE OF U.P. - Respondents
Cr1. R. 1796 Of 1983
Decided On : 05/04/1987
CRIMINAL PROCEDURE CODE - SECTION 101 - SEARCH WARRANT - JURISDICTION - DISPOSAL OF THINGS FOUND AND SEARCH MADE BEYOND JURISDICTION OF COURT ISSUING SEARCH WARRANTS - INTERPRETATION AND APPLICATION.
Fact of the Case:
A bus was stolen from Farrukhabad and a search warrant was issued by the Magistrate at Farrukhabad. The bus was recovered at Mainpuri and a Magistrate at Mainpuri ordered its release in favor of the applicant, who claimed to be the owner of the bus. The opposite party, alleging that the registration of the bus was obtained by the applicant through mischief, filed a revision before the Sessions Judge, Mainpuri, who granted the applicant one month's time to obtain an appropriate order from the court at Farrukhabad.
Finding of the Court:
The court held that the Magistrate at Mainpuri had no jurisdiction to pass an order for the release of the bus, as the search warrant was issued by the court at Farrukhabad and the bus was recovered at Mainpuri. The court further held that the bus was required in a case under sections 379, 460, 420 I.P.C. which had not yet been decided, and that the provisions of Section 451 were relevant, which enacts the procedure for passing an order for custody and disposal of property pending trial in certain cases.
Issues: 1. Whether the Magistrate at Mainpuri had jurisdiction to pass an order for the release of the bus, as the search warrant was issued by the court at Farrukhabad and the bus was recovered at Mainpuri? 2. Whether the bus was required in a case under sections 379, 460, 420 I.P.C. which had not yet been decided, and whether the provisions of Section 451 were relevant?
Ratio Decidendi: 1. The court held that the Magistrate at Mainpuri had no jurisdiction to pass an order for the release of the bus, as the search warrant was issued by the court at Farrukhabad and the bus was recovered at Mainpuri. The court relied on Section 101 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, which provides that in case a thing has been recovered in pursuance of a search warrant by a court which has no jurisdiction in respect of the place where the thing has been recovered, the same shall be sent immediately to the court which has issued the search warrant. 2. The court held that the bus was required in a case under sections 379, 460, 420 I.P.C. which had not yet been decided, and that the provisions of Section 451 were relevant, which enacts the procedure for passing an order for custody and disposal of property pending trial in certain cases.
Final Decision: The court dismissed the revision petition and upheld the order of the Chief Judicial Magistrate, Farrukhabad at Fatehgarh, which directed the Kotwali police at Farrukhabad to seize the bus and keep it in its custody.
( 1 ) THIS revision is directed against the order purported to have been passed under section 101 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973, (for short the Code ). After bearing the parties on 4/5/1987 the revision was dismissed, but detailed reasons were to follow. These reasons are set out below.
( 2 ) THE sequence of events leading to the present revision may be set out below. The opposite party No. 1 alleged to be the owner of Bus No. UTM 410, which was stolen from Farrukhabad lodged an F. I. R. on 12. 1. 81 It was alleged that while the Bus was standing near Bus Stand, Farrukhabad, it was taken by Suresh Kumar, Santosh Kumar and Siya Ram etc. The bus was in fact, seized from Mainpuri district. A search warrant was issued by the Magistrate at Farrukhabad. The said bus was recovered by the police at Mainpuri District from the possession of the present applicant, who was produced before the III Additional Munsif Magistrate, Mainpuri. A photostat copy of the registration certificate of Bus No. UTM 410 with its chassis and engine number was filed. The registration of the vehicle appeared in the name of the applicant. There appears to be no application made on behalf of the opposite party or the prosecution that search warrant was issued from the Magistrate, Farrukhabad District. There was accordingly nothing to deny the version of the present applicant that the bus was registered III his name nor there was any objection about jurisdiction of court at Mainpuri, and on executing a personal bond of Rs. 5000. 00 and furnishing two sureties in the like amount by order dated 19/5/1983, the bus was directed to be released in favour of the present applicant.
( 3 ) AGAINST the order dated 19/5/1983, Pooran Chand Tewari, opposite party No. 1 preferred a revision (being Criminal Revision No. 135 of 1983) before the Sessions Judge, Mainpuri. The present applicant who was allegedly holding registration in his name, was served and was represented. Being faced with difficulty, in view of the language of Section 101 of the Code as search warrant was executed at Farrukhabad and recovery was made within the jurisdiction of the Magistrate, Mainpuri, the present applicant (who was opposite party in revision before the Sessions Judge, Mainpuri), prayed for some time to enable him to obtain an appropriate order from the appropriate court at Farrukhabad. This prayer was accepted by the impugned order dated 12/8/1983 and the present applicant was granted one months time. The order passed by the Magistrate, Mainpuri, directing release of the bus was to come to an end on 12/9/1983. The present applicant instead of getting an order from appropriate court at Farrukhabad, has preferred the revision before this Court.
( 4 ) LEARNED counsel for the applicant urged that in view of the provisions of Section 101 of the Code the Magistrate at Mainpuri has got the jurisdiction and not the Magistrate at Farrukhabad, hence the impugned order dated 12. 883 cannot be sustained. Learned counsel for opposite party No. 1, on the other hand, urged that Section 101 was clear in terms and it provides that when in pursuance of the execution of a search warrant at any place beyond the local limits of the jurisdiction of a court issuing the same, anything is found outside the jurisdiction of that court (issuing search warrant), a list of things recovered shall be prepared and sent immediately to the court issuing the search warrant. Unless such place is nearer to the place having jurisdiction therein, the Magistrate shall make an order directing the particular thing to be taken to the said court. Further in pursuance of the directions contained in the impugned order dated 12. 8. 83 in which an undertaking was given on behalf of the applicant, to obtain an order from the court at Farrukhabad, the Chief Judicial Magistrate, Farrukhabad at Fatehgarh, has decided the matter, after hearing both the parties, by order dated 14. 9. 83 and held that as there was a dispu
AI
An indispensable Tool for Legal Professionals, Endorsed by Various High Court and Judicial Officers
Please visit our Training & Support
Center or Contact Us for assistance
Scan Me!
India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!
For Daily Legal Updates, Join us on :
Back to top
