GUPTA, J. - (1.) THIS misc. petition is directed against the orders dt. 24. 8. 96 and 24. 10. 96. By the first order the learned Special Judge A. C. D. Cases directed the Addl. S. P. , A. C. D. Jodhpur to deliver the property to the competent person and if for certain articles he is not in a position to decide, he could make a report in the Court. By the second order dt. 24. 10. 96 the learned Special Judge directed the Addl. S. P. to obtain the articles from Manjulata and produce them in the Court.
(2.) THE relevant facts of the case are these. Dr. Jagdish Jugtawat, husband of petitioner Manjulata, was the Medical Officer in a Government hospital. On 10. 9. 91 a raid was arranged and on search of his houses, including the house situate in Shastrinagar, Jodhpur, various articles were seized. THE articles which were seized from the Shastrinagar house of Jagdish Jugtawat were allowed to be kept by Manjulata who was his wife. During investigation, Dr. Narendra (brother of Jagdish), Sidhkaran his father and Dr. Jagdish himself filed applications in the Court for delivering articles seized by the police to them. All these applications were rejected by the Special Judge on 4. 1. 92 holding that since the articles were not taken in custody by the police, order for their disposal could not be passed by the Court. That order was challenged by Dr. Narendra by filing Misc. Petition No. 14/92 which came to be decided on 14. 5. 92 by this Court. It was held that the articles, though not were taken in possession during the raid, were in the custody of the court and could be disposed of by the Special Court. The police after investigation submitted a final report on 6/29. 12. 93. Manjulata filed objection to the acceptance of the final report. Rejecting her objections, the learned Special Judge accepted the final report on 1. 8. 94. While accepting the final report, the learned Special Judge ordered that the record and the articles be delivered to the concerned competent persons. After the order dt. 1. 8. 94, it seems, articles, not claimed by Manjulata, were disposed of by the police and they were handed over to six persons on their furnishing bonds. For the remaining articles the learned Special Judge proceeded to hold enquiry. Affidavits and counter affidavits were filed by the parties. On 22. 9. 95 the learned Special Judge, observing that after the acceptance of the F. R. on 1. 8. 94 and the order passed with regard to the property, nothing remained to be decided by the Court rejected the applications. On its part the police proceeded to hold enquiry in respect of remaining articles. However, Dr. Jagdish and others filed an application before the learned Special Judge on 15. 6. 96 complaining that the police did not comply with the order of the Court and did not return their property. The Addl. S. P. filed his reply on 2. 8. 96. Manjulata petitioner also filed an application stating that the articles belonged to her. After hearing the learned counsel for the parties, the learned Special Judge passed an order on 24. 10. 96 calling the explanation of the police and also directing the police to collect the articles from Manjulata.
(3.) MR. Mehta, learned counsel for the petitioner contended that the property seized in the case were not produced during enquiry or trial, and therefore, the property could be disposed of u/s. 457 Cr. P. C. His submission was that it is the duty of the Court to decide the respective claims of the claimants and dispose of the property. Pointing out that this Court has already held in its order dt. 14. 5. 92 that the property, though not seized by the police would be treated to have been seized and their disposal can be ordered by the Court, contended that the learned Special Judge had erred in rejecting the applications of the claimants on 22. 9. 95. In this connection he also pointed out that the order dt. 1. 8. 94 was vague and it did not indicate as to how the property was to be disposed of. He submitted that the Special Judge be directed to decide the claims of the various parties in exercise of power u/s. 457 Cr. P. C. Mr. Shreemali, learned counsel for the respondents, on the other hand, contended that the order dt. 22. 9. 95 was not challenged by the petitioner, and therefore, it has attained the finality. He submitted that the learned Special Judge has not erred when he directed the recovery of the property from the petitioner as the claims could be disposed of only after the property was produced in the Court. I have considered the above submissions. Section 457 Cr. P. C. reads as follows:- " 457. Procedure by police upon seizure of property - (1) Whenever the seizure of property by any police officer is reported to a Magistrate under the provisions of this Code, and such property is not produced before a Criminal Court during an inquiry or trial, the Magistrate may make such order as he thinks fit respecting the disposal of such property or the delivery of such property to the person entitled to the possession thereof, or if such person cannot be ascertained, respecting the custody and production of such property. (2) If the person so entitled is known, the Magistrate may order the property to be delivered to him on such conditions (if any) as the Magistrate thinks fit and if such person is unknown, the Magistrate may detain it and shall, in such case, issue a proclamation specifying the articles of which such property consists, and requiring the person who may have a claim thereto, to appear before him and establish his claim within six months from the date of such proclamation. " ;