HARI SWARUP
Nathu Lal – Appellant
Versus
State – Respondent
( 1 ) THIS revision has been filed against an order refusing to release the property pending in a criminal trial. The applicant was being prosecuted for an offence under Section 4 of the Public Gambling Act. Certain properties, i. e. a watch, a ring and currency notes of Rs. 200 were seized under Section 13 of the Act and brought to the court. The accused moved an application for release of these properties. The trial Court rejected the application. This order is now being sought to be revised.
( 2 ) THE Order could be passed only under Section 451 of the Criminal P. C. 1973 which reads as under:
When any property is produced before any criminal Court during any inquiry or trial, the Court may make such order as it thinks fit for the proper custody of such property pending the conclusion of the inquiry or trial, and, if the property is subject to speedy and natural decay, or if it is otherwise expedient so to do, the Court may, after recording such evidence as it thinks necessary, order it to be sold or otherwise disposed of.
The question arising for determination is whetoer the order of the Magistrate was an interlocutory order or not. According to Browns Law Dictio
Login now and unlock free premium legal research
Login to SupremeToday AI and access free legal analysis, AI highlights, and smart tools.
Login
now!
India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!
Copyright © 2023 Vikas Info Solution Pvt Ltd. All Rights Reserved.