Back
HIGH COURT OF ALLAHABAD
S. Malik and J.P. Chaturvedi, JJ.
Ajai Singh
Versus
Nathi Lal
Decided On : 06 March 1978
CRIMINAL PROCEDURE CODE - SECTION 457(1) - INTERPRETATION - MAGISTRATE'S JURISDICTION TO ORDER DISPOSAL OF SEIZED PROPERTY - SCOPE - NOT RESTRICTED TO CASES WHERE PROPERTY NOT PRODUCED IN COURT DURING INQUIRY OR TRIAL - APPLIES TO VARIOUS SITUATIONS INCLUDING DURING INVESTIGATION OR BEFORE COMMENCEMENT OF INQUIRY OR TRIAL.
Fact of the Case:
Three connected cases involving the seizure of vehicles by police during investigations of criminal offenses. Applicants sought release of the vehicles from police custody. Magistrate ordered release of the vehicles, but the orders were set aside by the Sessions Judge, relying on a precedent holding that magistrates lack jurisdiction to order disposal of seized property during investigation.
Finding of the Court:
The court held that the magistrate's jurisdiction under Section 457(1) of the Criminal Procedure Code (CrPC) is not restricted to cases where the seized property is not produced in court during an inquiry or trial. The court interpreted the provision to apply to various situations, including during investigation or before the commencement of an inquiry or trial.
Issues: Whether the magistrate has jurisdiction to order the disposal of seized property during the investigation of a case under the CrPC.
Ratio Decidendi: The court interpreted the language of Section 457(1) of the CrPC, which states that a magistrate may make an order regarding the disposal of seized property when "such property is not produced before a Criminal Court during an inquiry or trial." The court held that the words "is not produced" refer to the time when the magistrate is called upon to make an order for disposal of the property, and not to a future point in time during an inquiry or trial. The court also considered various situations in which a magistrate may need to exercise jurisdiction under Section 457(1), such as when an application for release of property is made during investigation, after completion of investigation, or during an inquiry or trial.
Final Decision: The court allowed the criminal revision and miscellaneous applications, setting aside the orders of the Sessions Judge and Metropolitan Magistrate and restoring the orders of the Magistrate releasing the seized vehicles. The court directed the magistrates to pass appropriate orders regarding the disposal and security of the vehicles.
( 1 ) THESE are three connected cases. Criminal Revision No. 1253 of 1977 is by Ajai Singh against an order of the learned III Additional Sessions Judge, Agra, dated 24th August 1977 setting aside the order of the Magistrate dated 2nd August 1977 releasing truck No. U. P. U. 2645. Misc. Case No. 3861 of 1976 is an application by Ram Naresih Singh Under Section 482, Criminal P. C. while Misc. Case No. 1169 of 1977 is an application by Abdul Razzaq Under Sections 482 and 483, Cr. PC In these three cases a common question of law arose and, therefore, they were referred to us.
( 2 ) THE facts concerning Criminal Revision No. 1253 of 1977 are that truck No. U. P. U. 2645 was seized by Hari Parwat police during investigation of a murder case, Ajai Singh applicant moved an application for release of the truck. This application was allowed by the Magistrate and the truck was released in favour of the applicant on his furnishing two sureties each of an amount of Rs. 10,000/- with a personal bond in the like amount. Nathi Lai opposite party filed a criminal revision in the Court of the Sessions Judge, Agra. The revision was heard and decided by the learned III Additional Sessions Judge, Agra on 24th August 1977. The revision was allowed and the order of the learned Magistrate releasing the truck in favour of the applicant Ajai Singh was set aside. Ajai Singh, therefore, filed a revision in this Court.
( 3 ) THE facts relating to Criminal Misc. No. 3861 of 1976 are that tractor No. U. S. M. 3558 belonged to Ram Naresh Singh. On the night between 27th and 28th May 1976 the tractor was seized by the police of Kachhwa Police Station as some dacoits who had committed dacoity on the same night at 11. GO P. M. in the house of Lalta Prasad in village Ramapur, Police Station Kachhwa were travelling by it. An application was moved for release of the tractor by Ram Naresh Singh before the Magistrate on 4th June 1976. It was dismissed on 9th June 1-976. It is against the order of the Magistrate dated Sth June 1976 that the application Under Section 482, Cr. PC was moved in this Court.
( 4 ) CRIMINAL Misc. Case No. H69 of 1977 relates to truck No. U. P. I. 505. Abdul Razaa applicant claimed to be its owner. It was seized by the police in connection with an offence Under Section 457/380, IPC It was alleged that 81 bags of cotton yarn which were stolen property had been transported by the truck. The applicant Abdul Razzaq moved an application for release of the truck belore the Metropolitan Magistrate, Kanpur who rejected it. The applicant filed a revision in the Court of the learned Sessions Judge, Kanpur. The revision was disposed of by the learned VI Additional Sessions Judge, Kanpur. It was dismissed. It was against the order of the learned VII Additional Sessions Judge, Kanpur that the applicant Abdul Razzaq moved an application Under Section 482. Cr. PC
( 5 ) THE impugned orders in all the three cases were based on the authority reported in Nannoo Mai v. Sher Mohammad Khan. 1976 Cri LJ 1783 (All ). In that case the police seized a truck along with its trolley from the possession of the applicant Nannoo Mai in connection with a case Under Sections 147, 420 and 341, IPC Sher Mohammad Khan made an application for release of the truck and the tiolley in his favour. The Magistrate allowed the application and released the truck and the trolley in favour of Sher Mohammad Khan. Nannoo Mai filed a revision in the Court of Session. The Additional Sessions Judge who heard the same dismissed the revision. Nannoo Mai thereupon made an application under the provisions of Section 482. Cr. PC 1973 which was heard by Honble Katju, J. who was of the view (at p. 1784):"a plain reading of Section 457 (1) Cr. P. C. 1973 clearly shows that it is applicable only when the property seized is not produced before a Criminal Court during an inquiry or trial. A Magistrate under this section can make an order regarding the seized property only after the i
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
