N.M.KASLIWAL, J. - (1.) BOTH these petitions under Section 482 Cr.PC are directed against the order of learned Additional Chief Judicial Magistrate, Jaipur City, Jaipur, dated October 20, 1987 as such they are disposed of by one single order.
(2.) THE Police, Thana Kotwali, Jaipur seized vehicle No. MHV 3584 (New number RLX 6045). Kailash Chand Mittal and Ratan Kumari Bhatnagar filed applications before the learned Magistrate for giving the delivery of the said car. Learned Magistrate did not decide the matter on merits and dismissed both the applications at this stage. Learned Magistrate gave a direction that after completing the investigation both the parties would be entitled to move an application afresh for delivery of such car. Criminal Miscellaneous Petition No. 747/87 has been filed by Shri Kailash Chand Mittal and Criminal Miscellaneous petition No. 757/87 by Ved Ratan Bhatnagar in his own name as husband and power of attorney holder of Ratan Kumari Bhatnagar. I have heard learned Counsel for both the parties. This matter was to be decided by the learned Magistrate under Section 457 Cr. PC because the property in question has not been produced before the Court and the seizure has been reported by the police to the Magistrate. Under Section 457 Cr.PC it is provided that when ever 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 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 possesion thereof, or if such person cannot be ascertained, respecting the custody and production of such property. Both the learned Counsel before this Court have contended that they have produced sufficient documentary evidence in order to decide the question relating to the delivery of the case in question Learned Magistrate, in these circumstances, was not correct in dismissing the applications and not to decide the matter on merits regarding the delivery of the car.
(3.) MR . Rastogi, learned Counsel for the petitioner Kaialsh Chand Mittal has raised an objection that Ved Ratan Bhatnagar had no right to file this petition under Section 482 Cr. PC before this Court as he was not an applicant for delivery of the car in question before the learned Magistrate. This objection, in my view, becomes redundant in view of the fact that I am giving a direction to the learned Magistrate to decide the applications filed by Ratan Kumari Bhatnagar and Kailash Chand Mittal.;