Allahabad High Court (8 Mar, 1988)

 Daya Shankar Pandey v. Rajendra Parsad Singh

Summary

 Chief Judicial Magistrate directed the police of Police Station Zamania to continue to detain
the truck in its possession till the matter is resolved by the civil court.

 Dissatisfied by the aforesaid order of the learned chief Judicial Magistrate, both the parties
went to in revision before the court of Sessions.

 The Bench held that the Criminal courts have jurisdiction to dispose of the property seized
during investigation, enquiry and trial under section 457 Cr.

 Haryana, wherein it was held by the Supreme Court that Criminal Court is vested with power
to order the release of the property seized from any person in connection with an offence
even though the property was not produced before the court and the trial has not commenced.

 P.C.) is reproduced below: 11(3) Every police officer acting under sub-section (1) shall
forthwith report the seizure to the Magistrate having jurisdiction and where the property
seized is such that it cannot be conveniently Transported to the court he may give custody
thereof to any person of his executing a bond undertaking to produce the property before the
court as and when required and to give effect to the further orders of the Court as to the
disposal of the same.

 Chief Judicial Magistrate directed the police of Police Station Zamania to continue to detain
the truck in its possession till the matter is resolved by the civil court.

 Dissatisfied by the aforesaid order of the learned chief Judicial Magistrate, both the parties
went to in revision before the court of Sessions.

 The Bench held that the Criminal courts have jurisdiction to dispose of the property seized
during investigation, enquiry and trial under section 457 Cr.P.C.

 Haryana, wherein it was held by the Supreme Court that Criminal Court is vested with power
to order the release of the property seized from any person in connection with an offence
even though the property was not produced before the court and the trial has not commenced.
 P.C.) is reproduced below: 11(3) Every police officer acting under sub-section (1) shall
forthwith report the seizure to the Magistrate having jurisdiction and where the property
seized is such that it cannot be conveniently Transported to the court he may give custody
thereof to any person of his executing a bond undertaking to produce the property before the
court as and when required and to give effect to the further orders of the Court as to the
disposal of the same.

 The assertion of the applicant that he had purchased the aforesaid truck from Opposite Party
No.1 on a consideration of Rs.60,000.00, is subject to grave doubts.

Judgement

S.I. JAFRI

(1.) Daya Shanker Pandey applicant has filed this application under section 482 cr. p.

c.seeking to quash the judgment and order dated 2-8-1986 passed by special Judge,

Ghazipur in Criminal Revision No. 102/1986 and No. 110 of 1986; whereby the learned

Special Judge, directed the delivery of truck bearing No. B. R. Z. 197: to Rajendra Prasad

Singh, Opposite party no.1. The aforesaid application was admitted by this Court on 6-8-

1986 and the operation of the order dated 2-8-1986 was also stayed.

(2.) The aforesaid Truck was taken to police Station Zamania, District Ghazipur by Ram

Raj Pandey, nephew of Daya Shanker Pandey applicant on 25.4.1986 as a consequence

of difference which cropped up between Daya Shankar Pandey, applicant and Rajender

Prasad Singh, Opposite party no lover the possession of the truck and it was handed over

in the custody of the police.

(3.) The case of the applicant was that the aforesaid Truck B. R. Z. 1971 was previously

owned by defendant and the same was purchased by him on 29-9-1986 for a

consideration of a sum of Rs. 60,000.00 but later on cordial relations between the

applicant and the opposite party no. I soured with the result that the opposite party no. 1
entertained the idea to take forcible possession of the aforesaid truck from the applicant.

Under the circumstances, the police of Police Station Zamania seized the aforesaid truck.

Both the parties i.e. the applicant and the opposite party Rajendra Prasad Singh applied

before the Magistrate for the release of the truck in their favour. However, the learned

Chief Judicial Magistrate, who had also been apprised of the pendency of the Civil suit

over the ownership of the truck, refrained from passing any order for the delivery of truck

to either party, but directed them to seek orders about the custody of the truck from the

civil court. However, the learned Chief Judicial Magistrate directed the police of Police

Station Zamania to continue to detain the truck in its possession till the matter is resolved

by the civil court.

(4.) Dissatisfied by the aforesaid order of the learned chief Judicial Magistrate, both the

parties went to in revision before the court of Sessions. The applicant filed Criminal

revision no 110 of 1986 while the opposite party Rajendra Prasad Singh filed Criminal

Revision No. 102 of 1986. The learned Sessions Judge after hearing the learned counsel

for the parties, disposed of the aforesaid revisions by a common judgment by order dated

2-8-1986 thereby directing the release of the aforesaid truck in favour of Opposite party

no. 2 Rajendra Prasad Singh. Feeling aggrieved by the aforesaid order, applicant Daya

Shanker has invoked this Courts inherent jurisdiction under section 482 cr. p.c. for

redress

(5.) It was contended by the learned counsel for the applicant that the Criminal court is

vested with no jurisdiction to release the truck in favour of Rajendra Prasad Singh, Op

party no. 1 and in support of his contention, reliance has been placed on Dhanu Mal and

others v. Sher Mohd. Khan, wherein the Honble Single Judge of this court held that

Magistrate has no jurisdiction to pass order regarding the disposal of the seized property
during investigation of the case under section 457(i) of the code of criminal procedure

1973. On the other hand, learned counsel for 0. P. No.1 has drawn my attention to a case

in Ajai. Singh Y. Nathi Lal and another, wherein a Division Bench of this court had over-

ruled the aforesaid law laid down in 1976 A.C.C. 306. The Bench held that the Criminal

courts have jurisdiction to dispose of the property seized during investigation, enquiry and

trial under section 457 cr. p. c. The learned counsel further placed reliance-on Ram

Prakash Sharma v. State of Haryana, wherein it was held by the Supreme Court that

Criminal Court is vested with power to order the release of the property seized from any

person in connection with an offence even though the property was not produced before

the court and the trial has not commenced. The learned counsel further submitted that

the argument advanced by the learned counsel for the applicant that since the truck was

not the subject matter of any criminal case, the criminal court has no power to release it

also carries no substance on merit. Reliance was placed on Dakshni Prasad v. State,

where the High Court had invoked its jurisdiction by releasing the Car which was found

by the Police abandoned on the street. The learned counsel further pointed out that in

view of amendment in section 102 cr. p.c, criminal courts have been conferred with

jurisdiction to dispose of the seized property by the Police during investigation, enquiry

and trial or otherwise. The said amendment (subsection (3) of section 102 cr. p.c.) is

reproduced below: 11(3) Every police officer acting under sub-section (1) shall forthwith

report the seizure to the Magistrate having jurisdiction and where the property seized is

such that it cannot be conveniently Transported to the court he may give custody thereof

to any person of his executing a bond undertaking to produce the property before the

court as and when required and to give effect to the further orders of the Court as to the

disposal of the same.

(6.) Lastly, the assertion of the applicant that he had purchased the aforesaid truck from

Opposite Party No.1 on a consideration of Rs.60,000.00, is subject to grave doubts. The

alleged sale-deed dated 24/4/1986 executed by Rajendra Prasad - Singh in favour of the

applicant is admittedly not registered. Moreover, vide order dated 20/5/1986 (annexure

C. A. 3) - while disposing of the injunction application moved by Daya Shanker Pandey

applicant, the learned Civil Judge, Ghazipur has held in Suit No. 78 of 1986 that these

ale-deed dated 24/4/1986 alleged to be executed by Rajendra Prasad Singh in favour of

the applicant is prima-facie a forged and fake document. Moreover, it is not denied by the

applicant that Rajendra Prasad Singh is a registered owner. Under the circumstance, the

applicant has no legs to stand. I also do not find any infirmity in the order dated 2-8-1986

passed by Special Judge, Ghazipur directing the release of truck in favour of Rajendra

Prasad Opp. Party no. 1.

(7.) In view of the discussions enumerated above, I hold that criminal courts have

jurisdiction to dispose of the property seized by the police even if it is found abandoned

by the police at a public place and the property not being connected with any offence.

(8.) In the result, the application filed by Daya Shankar Pandey applicant is dismissed as

devoid of merit. The stay order passed by this Court dated 6/8/1986 is vacated. The Chief

Judicial Magistrate, Ghazipur is directed to issue instructions to the Station Officer, police

Station, Zamania District Ghazipur to make over the Truck No. B. I. Z. 1971 - to Rajendra

Prasad Singh forthwith. Application dismissed.