JUDGEMENT
JASRAJ CHOPRA, J. -
(1.) THIS petition under sec. 482 Cr. P. C. has been filed against an interlocutory order passed by the learned Munsif & Judicial Magistrate, Abu Road dated 11. 11. 1982 whereby certain orders were given about the delivary of the truck but regarding four tyres and one tube, which were produced before the Court, it was ordered that they be sold and their sale proceeds be deposited in the Bank and that amount will not be withdrawn by any party till the final decision of the Court.
(2.) FROM the investigation, it was revealed that these tyres and one tube have been purchased by sale proceeds of the misappropriated property. Mr. M. K. Garg, the learned counsel appearing for the petitioner has drawn my attention to a decision of this Court in Jugal Kishore V. Sahulal (1), wherein it has been held that while passing final order under ss. 452 and 457, the Court is required to ascertain whether the person to whom the property is to he delivered is entitled to the possession thereof or not but there is no such requirement in respect of an interim order passed under s. 451. This shows that while passing an interim order for the custody of the property under s. 451 IPC, the Court is not required to hold an enquiry as to whether person to whom the property is to be delivered is entitled to the possession thereof or not. This authority only lays down that the Court can pass appropriate order under s. 451 IPC without holding an enquiry about the disposition of the property pending conclusion of the enquiry or trial. Thus, this authority does not support the case of the petitioner,
Mr. Garg nextplaced reliance on a decision of the Gujarat High Court in Kanchanlal V. State (2 ). That was a case where the stolen property was sold by the accused to J who sold the same to K, K sold that property alongwith his own property receiving the whole sale proceeds in a lump sum. K gave Rs. 151-4-0 to the police as the value of the stolen property which he had sold. The Magistrate ordered this amount to be paid to the complainant from whose possession the property was stolen. In those circumstances, it was held that the Magistrate was not entitled to order this sum to be paid to the complainant as it was not the specific money which K had received as sale proceeds of the stolen property alone. If it was a case of specific preperty which K has received, the Court could have ordered for the delivery of the money but in this case, the sale proceeds were of the stolen property as also of the property of K himself and, therefore, this order was held to be unjust. In the case in hand, the Court has only ordered for the auction of the property which has been purchased out of the sale proceeds of the mis-appropriated property and the amount so received should be deposited in the Bank. The Court has not ordered about the delivery of the amount of the sale proceeds to anybody and, therefore, this authority has no application to the facts and circumstances to this case.
Mr. Garg also placed reliance on a decision of the Allahabad High Court in Bishambhar Rai V. State (3 ). That was a case where the property although disposed of was no longer available to the Court and its money value was also not in the custody of the Court or supurdar and, therefore, it was hold that no order about the payment of money can be passed under the explanation to the section Here, four tyres and one tube which are alleged to have been purchased from the sale proceeds of the misappropriated property are available to the Court for disposal and the Court thought it fit that before the trial is concluded, this property should not be handed over either to the complainant or to the accused and, therefore, it has availed the third course i. e. to auction this property and its sale proceeds be deposited in the Bank and that order, in the facts and circumstances of this case, appears to be most just and reasonable. In this view of the matter, the impugned order calls for no interference by this Court.
In the result, this petition has no force and it is hereby dismissed. .;
Click here to view full judgement.
Copyright © Regent Computronics Pvt.Ltd.