Delhi District Court
Anis vs The State (Govt. Of Nct Of Delhi) on 4 December, 2018
IN THE COURT OF SH. ANIL KUMAR SISODIA :
SPECIAL JUDGE (PC ACT) (CBI)04: CENTAL DISTT:
TIS HAZARI COURTS: DELHI
CNR No. DLCT01118802018
CR No. 654/2018
Anis
S/o Peer Baksh
R/o H.No. 283, A Block,
Gali No. 6, Shri Ram Colony,
Karawal Nagar, Delhi. ..... Revisionist
Vs.
1. The State (Govt. of NCT of Delhi)
2. Aftab Ahmed
S/o Zarinuddin
R/o 8333, Gali No. 5,
Arya Nagar, Pahar Ganj,
Delhi110055.
3. Ishtiyaq
R/o H.No. 342, A Block, Gali no. 8,
Moti Chowk, Shri Ram Colony,
Delhi. ..... Respondents
Arising out of matter :
State Vs Anis FIR No. 6259/2017 U/s: 379 IPC PS: Pahar Ganj Cr. Rev. No. 654/2018 Anis Vs State (NCT of Delhi) & Ors. Page 1 of 8 Date of Institution of revision : 13.09.2018 Date of reserving order : 03.12.2018 Date of pronouncement : 04.12.2018 JUDGMENT
1. The present revision has been directed against the order dated 11.09.2018 vide which the application for superdari filed by the applicant Anis was dismissed and the vehicle i.e Santro Car bearing registration no. DL 4 C A P 7961 was released on superdari in favour of applicant Ishtiyaq.
2. Briefly stated, facts necessary for disposal of the revision petition are that complainant Aftab Ahmad filed online eFIR no. 006259/17 in respect of theft of car no. DL 4 CAP 7961. The stolen car was recovered from Shree Ram Colony, Khajuri, Delhi and revisionist/accused was arrested in the case. On the applications filed by accused Anis as well as Aftab and Mohd Ishtiyaq for release of the aforesaid car on superdari, Ld. Trial Court vide its order dated 11.09.2018 released the vehicle in favour of Mohd. Ishtiyaq.
3. Aggrieved by the impugned order dated 11.09.2018, revisionist has filed the present revision petition stating that the complainant of the eFIR no. 006259/17 was native of the same village as that of accused and both were friends. The complainant used to take the Cr. Rev. No. 654/2018 Anis Vs State (NCT of Delhi) & Ors. Page 2 of 8 vehicle from the revisionist for his use. In 2015, in the election of village Pardhan, the complainant was also a candidate and Kafiluddin, relative of the revisionist was also a candidate. Kafiluddin won the election and thereafter complainant became enimical towards the revisionist and his relatives and complainant including Ishtiyaq starting threatening the revisionist to kill him and implicate him in false cases. Revisionist lodged a complaint dated 12.08.2016 vide DD no. 49 B against the complainant. The revisionist was granted regular bail from the court in the aforesaid FIR. The revisionist filed an application for releasing his vehicle on superdari, Ishtiyaq also filed an application for superdari by showing a receipt of Rs. 55,000/ which revisionist has borrowed from Ishtiyaq to pay the EMI of the loan of the vehicle but Ishtiyaq falsely told the court that he has purchased the vehicle from revisionist and custody of the vehicle was given to Ishtiyaq. Revisionist has challenged the impugned order on the following grounds:
(i) Ld. Trial Court did not consider the fact that RC and Insurance of the vehicle in question was in the name of revisionist;
(ii) Applicant Ishtiyaq did not file any sale letter to show the sale purchase of vehicle in question;
(iii) Ld. Trial Court has given the impugned order regarding bail of some Sameer @ Sheikh on the application of the revisionist and Sameer @ Sheikh has no concern with the said FIR or the vehicle in question;Cr. Rev. No. 654/2018 Anis Vs State (NCT of Delhi) & Ors. Page 3 of 8
(iv) Ld. Trial Court has passed the order on conjecture and surmises and the same is not a judicial order and is required to be set aside.
A prayer was made for setting aside the impugned order dated 11.09.2018 and to give the custody of the vehicle in question to revisionist.
4. Notice of the revision petition was issued to the respondents. Trial Court Record was also summoned.
5. I have heard Ld. Counsel for the revisionist as well as Ld. Addl. PP for the State and have perused the record carefully.
6. Ld. Counsel for revisionist has argued on the lines of revision petition and has reiterated that order passed by Ld. Trial Court is illegal and contrary to the settled principles of law. It was argued that Ishtiyaq was not able to produce any sale letter to show that he had purchased the vehicle from the revisionist. Ishtiyaq also manipulated the receipt of Rs. 55,000/ as document of purchase of vehicle in question from the revisionist whereas the said amount was taken as loan by the revisionist. It was submitted that revisionist being the registered owner of the vehicle is entitled to its custody on superdari. Ld. Counsel for the revisionist has also placed the reliance of judgment of Nafe Singh Vs Devender Kumar & Ors., 2004 (1) C.C. CASES (HC) 266 wherein it was held that "person in whose name the vehicle Cr. Rev. No. 654/2018 Anis Vs State (NCT of Delhi) & Ors. Page 4 of 8 stands registered is primae facie the owner of vehicle and is entitled to its custody on superdari which is subject to final decision of criminal trial".
7. Ld. Addl. PP for the State/respondent no. 1 has argued that the present revision petition is not maintainable. It has been argued that the revision petition is directed against the order dismissing the application of superdari under Section 451 Cr.P.C. He has argued that the impugned order is not a final order and does not decide the rights of the parties but is merely in the nature of procedural order and hence is interlocutory order and Section 397 (2) Cr.P.C bars the revision petition against the interlocutory order. Reliance has been placed by the Ld. Addl. PP on the judgments of (i) Madhu Limaye Vs State of Maharastra, (1977) 4 SCC 551; (ii) Shamrao Sampatrao Khanderai Vs State of Maharashtra, 1979 Cri. Lj 1457 and judgment of Hon'ble High Court of Delhi in Rajiv @ Raj Vs State in Writ Petition (Cri.) NO. 854/2011 decided on 17.09.2015.
8. None has appeared on behalf of respondent no. 2 despite service of notice.
9. Ld. Counsel for respondent no. 3 had appeared and sought time to argue the case and bring case law in support of his submission on 03.11.2018 but thereafter none has appeared on behalf of respondent Cr. Rev. No. 654/2018 Anis Vs State (NCT of Delhi) & Ors. Page 5 of 8 no. 3.
10. It is an admitted fact that the impugned order dated 11.09.2018 passed by Ld. Trial Court dismissing the application of revisionist for release of car no. DL 4 CAP 7961 on superdari has been passed under Section 451 Cr.P.C. Section 451 empowers a criminal court to make such order as it thinks fit for the proper custody of the property produced before it during any inquiry or trial, pending conclusion of the inquiry or trial. The purpose of such an order obviously is to preserve the property either as evidence or in order to make a proper order after the case is over. No doubt, Section 451 is not intended even to decide the right of the parties to pass the property produced before the court and it is only intended to ensure proper custody of the property during the pendency of the trial. Of course, the order being discretionary in nature, the court has to exercise the discretion vesting in it judicially keeping in view all the circumstances of the case. In the process, the court may incidentally be guided by the consideration as to who is the person prima facie entitled to the possession of the case property and hand over its possession to him with a view to safeguard his interest but that may not be the sole consideration for the court while entrusting custody of the case property or property used in the commission of an offence etc to any of the rival claimants. One cannot be oblivious to the fact that the property produced in court during the course of an inquiry or trial is custodia legis and it remains so even Cr. Rev. No. 654/2018 Anis Vs State (NCT of Delhi) & Ors. Page 6 of 8 when its custody is entrusted to anyone of the rival claimants or anyone else because he is liable to produce the same as and when directed by the court. The power to recall entrustment for any reason which the court may deem fit in lies in the court in the very nature of the circumstances and the purpose for which the properly is entrusted on superdari. The duration of such entrustment can at best be until conclusion of the trial. So, in the eye of law, his possession or custody is only that of Court. Section 452 specifically deals with the disposal of such property at the conclusion of the inquiry or trial. It is at that stage that the court has to determine as to which of the rival claimants is entitled to possession thereof. As a necessary corollary it would follow that the entrsutment of the case property to any of the rival claimants under Section 451 does not amount to adjudication of any right much less the competing rights of the rival claimants. Therefore, an order under Section 451 Cr.P.C must be said to be essentially interlocutory in nature.
11. In Shamrao Sampatrao Khanderia (Supra) it was held that "on the face of it, the purpose of Section 451 is to direct the custody of the property till the case is decided. Such an order would obviously be an interlocutory order". Similarly in Nathu Lal Vs State, 1976 Cri. Lj 358 (All.) and Vasu Vs T. Unnikrishnan and another, 1983 Cri. Lj 1194, it was held that the order passed under Section 451 Cr.P.C is interlocutory in character. Recently, Hon'ble High Court of Delhi in Cr. Rev. No. 654/2018 Anis Vs State (NCT of Delhi) & Ors. Page 7 of 8 Rajiv @ Raj Vs State (supra), has held that the order dismissing the application for superdari was an interlocutory order against which no revision would lie and hence writ petition was maintainable.
12. In view of the aforesaid legal position, I am of the considered opinion that the revision petition filed by the revisionist is barred under Section 397 (2) Cr.P.C. The revision petition accordingly stands dismissed as not maintainable.
TCR be sent back forthwith along with the copy of this order.
Revision File be consigned to record room after due
compliance. ANIL Digitally signed by
ANIL KUMAR
KUMAR SISODIA
Date: 2018.12.04
SISODIA 17:07:42 +0530
Announced in the open court (ANIL KUMAR SISODIA)
th
On 4 day of December, 2018 Special Judge (PC Act) (CBI)04
Central Distt: Tis Hazari Courts:
Delhi
Cr. Rev. No. 654/2018 Anis Vs State (NCT of Delhi) & Ors. Page 8 of 8