P.N.Bakshi - (1.) A truck was seized in connection with an offence under Section 406/420 IPC pending trial. It has been released by the Magistrate on furnishing two sureties of Rs.50,(000/- each and a personal bond of the like amount. Aggrieved by the conditions the State filed a revision before the Sessions Judge, Deoria. The Sessions Judge has modified the conditions of the release order and has directed Phool Chand Upadhaya to deposit a sum of Rs.35,000/- in Fixed Deposit and pledge it in favour of the Sessions Judge, Deoria and also furnish a personal bond of the like amount to produce the truck as and when required. Aggrieved thereby the instant revision has been filed by Phool Chand Upadhaya.
(2.) I have heard counsel for this parties and have also perused the impugned order. The applicant's counsel has argued that the revision filed by the State before the Sessions Judge, Deoria was not maintainable, inasmuch as, it was filed against an interlocutory order imposing terms and conditions by the Magistrate for the release of the truck. Counsel for the State, on the other hand, argued that the revision was maintainable, inasmuch as the offence was committed with the aid of the truck. The prosecution allegations are that certain bags of sugar were entrusted to Phool Chand Upadhaya, the owner of the truck, for being transported to another place, which he misappropriated. The truck was seized after several months. The truck belonged to Calcutta and, therefore, unless a personal security in cash, as directed by the Sessions Judge, was taken it would severely affect the right of complainant inasmuch as the recovery of any compensation which may be awarded to the complainant would become impossible. The word interlocutory order has been the subject-matter of the Interpretation by the Supreme Court in a number of decisions. The latest decision is reported in Amar Nath v. State of Hat yam, 1977 CAR 273. While considering this question the Supreme Court has observed as follows : "But orders which are matters of moments and which affect or adjudicate the right of the accused or a particular aspect of the trial cannot be said to be interlocutory order so as to be outside the purview of the revisional jurisdiction of the High Court." In my opinion, the question of delivery for interim custody of the truck is covered within the aforesaid observation of the Supreme Court. The contention of the complainant is that unless a cash security is taken from the accused prior to the delivery of the truck, his rights would be severely prejudiced, because any damages awarded to him as compensation would become irrecoverable, in the circumstances of the case. Moreover, delivery of the truck is certainly a matter of the moment which is of sufficient importance to the party concerned, during the pendency of the trial. In my view, therefore, an order passed by the Magistrate during the pendency of the trial directing delivery of the truck to Phool Chand Upadhaya on terms and conditions imposed by it would not be an interlocutory order in the sense that it would deprive the revisional court of its jurisdiction to interfere with the same in the exercise of revisional power.
(3.) THERE is yet another aspect of the matter. Under Section 401 CrPC the powers of the High Court, in revision have been laid down. In the case of any proceedings the record of which has been called for by the High Court itself or which otherwise comes to its knowledge this Court has been vested with ample power to pass an appropriate order in the interest of justice. Even assuming for a moment for purposes of argument that the revision before the Sessions Judge was not maintainable, yet this Court while exercising power under Section 401 CrPC has ample jurisdiction to pass an appropriate order in the cause of justice. The facts, which have been brought to the notice of the Court, amply justify an inference at the present stage that strict conditions should be placed upon the owner of the truck, who is a resident of Calcutta, so that the progress of the trial and the result thereof might not be adversely affected by the avoidance of the due process of law. The Magistrate had only directed Phool Chand Upadhaya to furnish two sureties of Rs. 50.000/- each and a personal bond of the like amount in the event of failure of Sri Upadhaya to produce the truck, as and when required by the Court. These conditions. In my opinion, would not be stringent enough to compell Sri Upadhya to produce the vehicle In Court. If avoided by him it would lead to further complications and litigations in order to obtain production of the truck. Thus the order which has been passed by the Sessions Judge, Deoria directing Sri Upadhya to deposit a sum of Rs. 35,000/- in Fixed Deposit and to pledge it in favour of the Sessions Judge, Deoria would be an appropriate and just order, in the circumstances of the case, which would have a compulsive effect upon the accused to produce the vehicle when required by the Court, failing which the court would find mo difficulty in realising the value of the truck and damages. In these circumstances, I am of the opinion that the order passed by the Sessions Judge, Deoria was a fair order justified by the circumstances of the case and even if a revision did not lie before him, I have no hesitation in endorsing his view and passing a similar order, if not under Section 401 CrPC then under Section 482 CrPC.;