Document Fragment View

Matching Fragments

4. The learned Judicial Magistrate, First Class, Darwha, heard this matter. The parties produced certain documents and advanced arguments. Thereafter the learned Magistrate came to the conclusion that non-applicant No. 2 has proved that he was entitled to possession of the truck and that an order in his favour was necessary. Accordingly an order has been passed and the applicant hag preferred this revision against that order.

5. The first contention that has been raised by Mr. Lambat for the applicant is that under the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973, a Magistrate has no power to pass any order regarding the custody of a property that has been attached by the police during the investigation. According to him, such a power was vested in the Magistrate Under Section 523 of the old Code of Criminal Procedure, 1898, but corresponding new Section 457 does not empower the Magistrate to pass any such order. To appreciate this contention, it will be convenient to refer to the provisions of Sections 451, 452 and 457 of the Cr.PC 1973. Under Section 451, a Criminal Court is empowered to pass an order, during any enquiry or trial, for proper custody of the property that has been produced before that Court. Section 452 of the Code provides that a Criminal Court, on conclusion of an enquiry or trial, may pass an order for the disposal by destruction, confiscation or delivery to any person of any property that he has produced in that case. Then comes Section 457 and I would like to reproduce Sub-section (1) thereof. It reads as follows:

7. Mr. Lambat, therefore, urged that as laid down in the above-mentioned decision, the Magistrate was not entitled to pass the impugned order as the case was still at the investigation stage. Mr. Salve, the learned Assistant Government Pleader and Mr. H. S. Ghare, for the non-applicantg 1 and 2, have submitted that the interpretation put by the Allahabad High Court on Section 457, Cr.PC is not correct and that the revision should not be decided on the basis off that decision. The Allahabad High Court has laid down two propositions, viz. (1) that a Magistrate can pass order only after the inquiry or trial is concluded, and (2) he cannot make an order during the investigation of the case. As far as the first point is concerned, Shri Salve submitted that the decision of the Allahabad High Court in that respect would make provisions of Section 457, Cr.PC redundant inasmuch as that contingency is already covered by Section 452 of the Cr.PC There is much substance in this submission. Under Section 452, Cr.PC a Magistrate is empowered to pass orders on conclusion of a trial or enquiry, with respect to the disposal of the property by destruction, confiscation and delivery. The wording of that section suggest that it is not necessary that the property should have been produced in Court. It would thus appear that wide powers have been given to a Magistrate Under Section 452, Cr.PC to pass any type of order which would be necessary in the interest of justice. In that background, Mr. Salve urged that the scope of Section 457 cannot be limited to mean that the Magistrate can pass orders under that section only after the conclusion of the enquiry or trial, According to him, such a construction would amount to duplication of a provision with respect to one and the same matter. I think that the submission made by Mr. Salve and Mr. Ghare is well founded. It will not be possible to put construction on Section 457 so as to make it synonymous with the 'provisions of Section 452, Cr.PC