Devendra Kumar vs State of M. P. - 1993 Supreme(MP) 291

Judicial Analysis Court Copy Headnote Facts Arguments Court observation

Advocates:
Jaisingh for petitioner; Kutumbale for Respondent No.2; Phadke for State.

Headnote:(1) Criminal P.C., 1973 -- Ss. 457 and 497 -- order of interim custody -- is not of interim nature -- revision against such order is maintainable.
        (2) Criminal P.C., 1973 -- Ss. 497 and 457 -- order of interim custody -- is revisable under S. 497.
        (3) Criminal P.C., 1973 -- S. 457 -- interim possession -- is normally given to the person from whose possession the property is seized -- prima facie ower-ship cannot be decided under these proceedings.
        ¼1½ naM izfdz;k lafgrk] 1973 & /kkjk 457 rFkk 497 & varfje vfHkj{kk dk vkns‘k & varfje Lo:i dk ugha gS & ,sls vkns‘k ds fo#) iqujh{k.k pykus ;ksX; gSA
        ¼2½ naM izfdz;k lafgrk] 1973 & /kkjk 457 rFkk 497 & varfje vfHkj{kk dk vkns‘k & /kkjk 497 ds v/khu iqujh{k.kh; gSA
        ¼3½ naM izfdz;k lafgrk] 1973 & /kkjk 457 & varfje dCtk & lkekU;r;k ml O;fDr dks fn;k tk rk gS ftlds dCts ls laifRr vfHkx`ghr dh tkrh gS & bl dk;Zokgh esa izFke n`"V~;k LokfeRo fofufpr ugha fd;k tk ldrkA

        Briefly stated the material facts are that the present petitioner Devendra Kumar reported that he had dispatched on 23.8.1992 raw Sarson-Ka-Tel (Mustard Oil) weighing 97 quintals 50 kilograms through driver Sardar Mahendra Singh in oil tanker bearing registration number CPF 9741 from Datiya to Ganesh Oil Product Limited, Bargad in Orissa. However, as the consignment did not reach the destination, on report of Devendra Kumar to police, the oil was traced with respondent No.2 Satyanarayan and at his instance it was seized on 31.8.1992. A part of the oil was sold by Satyanaray to another person at Indore and this lot was seized at Indore on 1.9.1992.
        Both parties namely Devendra Kumar and Satyanarayan applied for giving the oil in his possession. The trial Magistrate ordered that the oil be given in custody of Devendra Kumar as he was the owner.
        Satyanarayan took a revision to the Court of Session contending inter-alia that he was a bona fide purchaser for value in possession of the oil and, therefore inasmuch as the oil was seized from his possession, the same should be handed over to him till the disposal of the criminal case.
        The learned Sessions Judge agreed with the contention of Satyanarayan and ordered that deLi"Very of oil to his cutody on the conditions on his furnishing security to the extent of rupees three lacs.
        Held: Devendra Kumar had now come up in this revision to High Court against the revisional order of Court of Session. The first contention of the petitioner is that no revision lay to the Court of Session in as much as the order about deLi"Very of property was a interlocutary order against which a revision under Section 397 was not maintainable under the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973. It is now settled law that an order regarding disposal of property cannot be said to be interlocutary order simply because the criminal case is not finally adjudicated. The order is in the nature of final order in so far as it finally decided the quesion of custody of the property during investigation and trial. Consequently it is too late to contend that the revision was not maintainable.
        It was then contended that there was prima facie material to show that Devendra Kumar was the owner of the oil and was its consignor and consequently the oil must be given in his Supratnama. This is not a Civil Court to decide the question of prima facie ownership. The normal rule in criminal case is to deLi"Ver the property to the person from whose possession it has been seized, unless there are good reasons to make a deviation form this rule. In the present case after all Sarso oil is a marketable commodity and there is no dispute in the nature of maintaining its condition in species because Sarso oil as such is not identifiable. The entire dispute would be about the liability of a person to pay the price of this oil and that does not fall within the ambit of the jurisdiction of the Court while deciding the right to custody of the seized property during investigation and trial. Petition dismissed.