In these two petitions filed by the Police Inspectors serving the Gujarat State, it has been contended that prosecuting agency has no light to ask for remand of petitioners (accused) for the purpose of collecting evidence and the application moved for remand of the petitioners (accused) was unjustified because anticipatory bail was granted to them.

It is the prosecution version, as per the FIR lodged on 7.2.2002 by the Assistant Commissioner of Police. 'D' Division, Surat that petitioners and other police personnel are involved in offences punishable under sections 429,420,465,468,477 A and 114, IPC. It is alleged that when they were working at various police stations, they have committed offences during the period from 20.2.1992 to 23.11.2001 by replacement of muddamal articles including golden ornaments by other spurious articles, misappropriation of the amount which was kept at the police station, unauthorised auction of the property which was seized and kept in the police custody pending trial and tampering with the records or police station. The High Court by its judgment and order dated 20.6.2002 rejected the application against the order passed by the trial Court granting remand of the petitioner. Hence, these special leave petitions.

At the time of the hearing of these matters, learned counsel for the parties submitted that various aJ1icles are kept at the police stations for a long period by not adhering to the procedure prescribed under CrPC, which creates difficulties for keeping them in safe custody. Finally, the sufferers are -- either the State Exchequer or the citizens whose articles are kept in such custody It is submitted that speedier procedure is required to be evolved either by the Court or under the rules for disposal of muddamal articles which are kept at various police stations as most of the police stations are flooded with seized al1icles. It is, therefore, submitted that directions be given so that burden of the COUl1S as well as at the police stations can, to some extent, be reduced and that there may not be any scope for misappropriation or of replacement of valuable articles by spurious articles.

Learned Counsel further referred to the relevant sections 451 and 457 of Code of Criminal Procedure, which read thus -

"451. Order for custody and disposal of property pending trial in certain cases, -- 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.

Explanation. - For the purposes of this section, "property" includes:

(a) property of any kind or document which is produced before the Court or which is in its custody,

(b) any property regarding which an offence appears to have been committed or which appears to have been used for the commission of any offence.

457. Procedure by police upon seizure of property: -- (1) Whenever the seizure of property by any police officer is reported to a Magistrate under the provisions of this Code, and such property is not produced before a Criminal Court during an inquiry or trial, the Magistrate may make such order as he thinks fit respecting the disposal of such property or the delivery of such property to the person entitled to the possession thereof, or if such person cannot be ascertained, respecting the custody and production of such property.

(2) If the person so entitled is known, the Magistrate may order the property to be delivered to him on such conditions (if any) as the Magistrate thinks fit and if such person is unknown, the Magistrate may detain it and shall, in such case, issue a proclamation, specifying the articles of which such property consists, and