Madhya Pradesh High Court
Bimal Panja vs The State Of Madhya Pradesh on 30 September, 2009
Author: U. C. Maheshwari
Bench: U. C. Maheshwari
HIGH COURT OF MADHYA PRADESH, PRINCIPLE BENCH AT
JABALPUR
M.Cr.C. No. 7209/09
Bimal Panja
Versus.
State of M.P.
For applicant : Shri M.L. Choubey with Shri S.K. Choubey,
Advocates.
For respondent-State : Shri L.D.S. Baghel, G.A.
ORDER
( 30 .09.2009) Per U. C. Maheshwari J.
1. This petition is preferred by the applicant - complainant under Section 482 of Cr.P.C being aggrieved by the order dated 23.1.09 passed by the Additional Chief Judicial Magistrate, Jabalpur in Criminal Case No. 9975/08 dismissing his application filed under Section 451/457 of Cr.P.C for interim custody of the seized articles of Crime No. 518/05, registered at P.S. Kotwali, Jabalpur for the offence under Section 395 and 397 of IPC.
2. Undisputedly this petition is filed by the applicant in this court without exhausting the remedy of the Revision before the appropriate forum as provided under Section 397 of Cr.P.C. The law is almost settled on the question that the order passed with respect of the interim custody of the seized articles in a criminal case under the provision of Section 451 and/or Section 457 is not an interlocutory order but under such Sections at that interim stage such order attains the finality. In such premises, the same appears to be revisable. Such approach is fully fortified by the following decisions in which the revision was entertained and adjudicated on merits :-
(i) 2004 (4) M.P.H.T. 11 (NOC ) (Smt. Sunita Yadav Vs. State of M.P.)
(ii) 1974 Cri.L.J. 231 (Punjab) (Ishwar Singh Vs. The State of Punjab and others).
(iii) 1980 Cri. L.J. (NOC) 6 (Gauhati), (Radha Prasad Goala Vs. Manir Mia and another).
(iv) 1989 M.P.L.J., Page 431, (Go Bhachav Samittee Nalkheda vs. State of M.P., through Police and another).
3. It is settled proposition of law that the power vested in this court under Section 482 of Cr.P.C can not be invoked lightly when the other forum for appropriate proceedings, revision or otherwise is available to the party. Therefore, by entertaining this petition, the applicant can not be permitted to misuse the process of law.
4. In view of the aforesaid, without entering in any merits of this petition, the same is hereby dismissed at the initial stage on the aforesaid technical ground of maintainability. However, the applicant is extended the liberty to file an appropriate proceeding before the appropriate forum in accordance with law, as stated above. The certified copy of the impugned order filed in the petition by retaining the photocopy be returned to the applicant's counsel enabling him to file the aforesaid appropriate proceeding.
( U.C. Maheshwari ) Judge bks