Indian Kanoon - Search engine for Indian Law

10. A careful scrutiny of the decision of their Lordships in Sundarbhai Ambalal Desai (supra) clearly indicates that the decision is an authority about the general law regarding release of vehicles seized in connection with any criminal case, but the same does not answer the issue whether in a case where there are special provisions under a local or special Act, like the U.P. Excise Act, relating to seizure and confiscation of vehicles, the powers under Section 451 or for that matter under Section 457, would still be available with the Magistrate pending confiscation proceedings under the special or the local law. In fact, the decision of their Lordships in Sundarbhai Ambalal Desai (supra) arose in the context of a challenge to an order of police remand for the petitioners granted to the prosecuting agency, where the petitioners were police personnel involved in offences punishable under Sections 429, 420, 465, 468, 477A and 114 IPC. The allegations against them were that while working at different police stations, they had committed offences over a period of time involving replacement of valuable articles retained as case property by other spurious articles, misappropriation of money also seized in connection with cases, unauthorized auction of property seized and kept at the police station, pending investigation or trial. In short, the offences that engaged the attention of their Lordships were all offence to which the Code, including the provisions of Sections 451 and 457 wholesomely applied.

11. There was no issue that fell for consideration about the effect of a special statute governing the powers of the Magistrate under Section 451 or 457 of the Code to release case property where, under the special statute, there were special provisions for the confiscation and release of seized goods, including vehicles. This question was answered by this Court in Ved Prakash vs. State of U.P., 1982 AWC 167 All. The case arose on a revision to this Court from an order of the Judicial Magistrate rejecting an application for release of a car under Section 457 of the Act that was apprehended while transporting liquor in violation of the U.P. Excise Act. Proceedings under Section 72 of the U.P. Excise Act, and, hereinafter referred to as the Act, were pending before the Collector. In the background of the said facts, it was held by this Court that the Magistrate had no jurisdiction before a decision of the criminal case arising out of an apprehension of a vehicle carrying liquor in contravention of the law, to order release under Section 457 of the Act, inasmuch as, the special provisions of the Act that was a local law within the meaning of Section 5 Cr.P.C., would prevail over the provisions of the Code, denuding the Magistrate of his jurisdiction under Section 457 of the Act. It was held in Ved Prakash (supra) thus:

"5. Learned Counsel for the applicant urged that even accepting that the Collector has complete powers to deal with the property seized in connection with the commission of an offence under the U.P. Excise Act, the power of the Magistrate, before whom the prosecution is pending, is not taken away and if the Magistrate exercises his jurisdiction to pass an order under section 457 CrPC it will prevail. In other words the argument is that the jurisdiction of the Magistrate under Section 457 CrPC shall override the jurisdiction conferred on the Collector under section 72 of the U.P. Excise Act. The argument fails to impress me.

3. It has not been denied that the instant case about contravention of the provisions of the Essential Commodities Act is to be heard and decided by the Special Judge. That being so the Special Judge is the court competent to decide the matter. Section 451 of the Code of Criminal Procedure gives power to a court to pass appropriate orders about the interim custody of any property produced before the court in connection with a trial or inquiry. Since a charge-sheet has not yet been submitted and the case property including the vehicle has not yet been produced before that court, it may be legitimately said that Section 451 CrPC has no application to the matter. Section 457 CrPC is another provision giving power to the court concerned to pass appropriate orders in respect of the property seized and reported by the police. It is true that the property is not such about which no further action for confiscation or release etc. is to be taken or about which any final report in the case itself had been made and the property might be lying undisposed of without any appropriate order but all the same the property has not yet been produced before a criminal court within the meaning of Section 457 CrPC. It may be produced in due course. The term " property not produced before the criminal court " denotes not only the property which is seized but finally withheld from being produced before the court but also the property which though seized has not yet been produced before the court and is in due course likely to be produced in the case. Support is lent to this contention by two decisions; one of this Court and the other of the Supreme Court, namely, Ajai Singh v. Nathi Lal, 1978 AWC 225 = 1978 ACrR 140 and Ram Prakash Sharma v. State of Haryana, 1978 CriLJ 1120."