Document Fragment View

Matching Fragments

7. Furthermore, for reiteration the power of sale or disposal of property contemplated in Section 451 of the Cr.P.C., besides can be concluded to encompass only moveable property and that too when concluded on an evaluation of evidence as adduced before the Criminal Court of competent jurisdiction qua its being subject to speedy and natural decay. Naturally, .

immovable property which is neither subject to speedy or natural decay nor liable to be produced nor producible before the Court, obviously then hence no order for its disposal or sale during the pendency of an inquiry or trial can be rendered by the Criminal Court of competent jurisdiction. The Explanation (b) to Section 451 of the Cr.P.C., manifesting the fact that the property as defined in the substantive provisions of Section 451 of the Cr.P.C., is also construable to be any property regarding/qua which an offence appears to have been committed or which appears to have been used for the commission of any offence, is also in amplification of the substantive provisions of Section 451 of the Cr.P.C., wherein the sine qua non ingredients, to be mandatorily borne by "property", qua which an order for its disposal or of sale are jurisdictionally renderable by the Criminal Court of competent jurisdiction during the pendency of any inquiry or trial before it, after the recording of evidence, are of its being hence concluded to be subject to speedy and natural decay besides, its being producible before the Court. Moreover, the orders envisaged or contemplated to be renderable in the substantive provisions of Section 451 of the Cr.P.C., are with a manifest salutary object to preclude or prevent the proven speedy and natural decay of .

property. The contemplation and intent of explanation (b) to Section 451 of the Cr.P.C. cannot extend nor enlarge nor substitute the substantive provisions of Section 451, Cr.P.C., so as to render open an inference, that even when the accused/petitioner herein has allegedly committed offences comprised in his act of installing his locks upon the locks installed by the complainant/respondent No.2 on the disputed premises warranting the sealing of the said premises at the instance of the police, yet when obviously the disputed premises is an immovable property, hence, un-producible in Court nor liable for production in Court, that hence during the pendency of an inquiry or trial against the petitioner herein/accused qua the commission of offences constituted under Sections 147, 148, 323, 504, 506 read with Section 149 of the IPC, besides when it is neither subject to natural or speedy decay, it would befittingly empower the Criminal Court of competent jurisdiction to during the pendency of the inquiry or trial render an order for its sale or disposal, as facilitating or lending boost to the aforesaid inference on the anvil of explanation (b) to Section 451 of Cr.P.C. would be erosive of the intent and contemplation of the substantive provisions of Section 451 of the Cr.P.C. Explanation

(b) to Section 451 of the Cr.P.C., cannot be read in a manner so as .

to denude the salutary purpose of the substantive provisions of Section 451 of the Cr.P.C., with a loud communication therein of the intent of the legislature, of its being available for invocation only when the sine qua non conditions pronounced therein standing substantiation inasmuch, as the property qua which, during the pendency of an inquiry or trial, the Criminal Court of competent jurisdiction may render an order qua its sale or disposal, having come to be produced in Court, as also, a firm conclusion on an discernment of evidence adduced before it preceding the rendition of an order qua its sale or disposal, that it is subject to speedy and natural decay. Necessarily then when the offences allegedly committed by the accused is upon and qua immovable property yet even then when it neither subject to speedy or natural decay nor was produced besides, un-producible at the time of rendition of the impugned orders by both the learned Courts below, the enshrined substantive provisions of Section 451 of the Cr.P.C., as enjoined to be substantiated for its invocation would hence be rendered meaningless as well as redundant, in case yet, hence, as untenably done, its temporary possession is ordered to be delivered to respondent No.2 herein. The substantive provisions of Section 451 of the Cr.P.C., when pronouncing upon .

the conditions which are to be satisfied, before the Criminal Court of competent jurisdiction proceeds to render an order in terms thereof, cannot but be allowed to remain intact or uneroded. Any effort or concert while relying upon Explanation (b) in Section 451, Cr.P.C., to erode them would beget an anomalous scenario which was never within contemplation of the legislature. Therefore, no succor is to be drawn from explanation (b) to Section 451 of the Cr.P.C., to extend or enlarge the purpose and intent of the substantive provisions of Section 451 of the Cr.P.C., so as to empower the Criminal Court of competent jurisdiction to take within its ambit and scope immoveable property for hence empowering it to render an order qua its disposal during the pendency of the inquiry or trial. Besides, to permit such enlargement or extension to the meaning of explanation (b) in Section 451 of the Cr.P.C., would manifestly be militative of, besides would beget conflict with the substantive provisions of Section 451, Cr.P.C. with the mandatorily enjoined proven conditions enunciated therein of the property qua which the contemplated orders under Section 451 of the Cr.P.C., are renderable by the Criminal Court of competent jurisdiction on its having come to be produced before it, besides satisfaction having .