Document Fragment View

Matching Fragments

.

7. Placing reliance upon pronouncement of the apex Court in case titled as Sunderbhai Ambalal Desai versus State of Gujarat,  reported in  (2002) 10 Supreme Court Cases 283, it is also argued that the trial Court has failed to r to follow   the   guidelines   laid   down   by   the   apex   Court   for exercising the power by the Magistrate under Sections 451 and   457   CrPC   with   regard   to   the   disposal   of   mudammal articles   kept   in   police   custody   during   pendency   of   trial, wherein it has specifically been observed by the apex Court that   power   under   Section   451   CrPC   should   have   been exercised keeping in view various purposes required to be served   under   this   Section,   which,   in   present   case,   are   as under:

authorized representative.

21. Sections 451 to 459 in Chapter XXXIV of CrPC deal   with   provisions   for   disposal   of   property.     In   present case,   we   are   concerned   with   Section   457   CrPC,   which provides   provision   for   disposal   of   property   seized   by   any police officer, reported to a Magistrate under the provision of CrPC,   but   the   said   property   is   not   produced   before   a Criminal   Court   during   an   inquiry   or   trial.     In   such   a situation, it provides that Magistrate may, if he thinks fit, order   disposal   of   such   property   or   the   delivery   of   such property to the person entitled to the possession thereof or if such   person   is   not   ascertainable,   he   can   pass   any   order respecting the custody and production of such property.  At the time of passing of the order with respect to such seized property, he has to give due consideration to the interests of justice including the prospective necessity of the production of the seized articles at the time of the trial, and if release of the property seized will, in any manner, affect or prejudice the course of justice at the time of trial, it will be a wise .

discretion to reject the claim for return.    As evident from bare reading of the provision for considering a case/release application under Section 457 CrPC, it is not necessary that such property must be produced before the Magistrate.  The only requirement is that the seized property is reported to a Magistrate under the provisions of CrPC. {See Ram Parkash Sharma versus State of Haryana, (1978) 2 Supreme Court Cases 491.}

22. Sub­section (2) of Section 457 CrPC provides that if the person entitled to possession is known, the Magistrate may   deliver   the   possession   of   property   to   him   subject   to certain   conditions   considered   fit   by   the   Magistrate   and   if such person is not known, Magistrate may detain property, and, in such a case, he shall issue a proclamation specifying the articles of which such property consists, requiring any person, who may have a claim thereto, to appear before him and establish his claim within six months from the date of such proclamation.

direction of the Court.   It has further been held that Court would pass such order within a period of six months from the date of production of the said vehicle before it.

26. Provisions of Chapter XXXIV of CrPC, especially Section   457   CrPC   read   with   Section   458   CrPC,   do   not prohibit   filing   of   second   application   for   release   of   the property seized by the police and also, there is nothing in law   prohibiting   the   Courts   from   entertaining   the   second application/petition where previous application/petition had been   dismissed   for   default,   on   failure   of   the   applicant/ petitioner to remain present himself or through his counsel, without adjudicating the matter on merit after giving full consideration to the case.