G.L. Gupta, J. - (1.) This misc. petition is directed against the order date 15.2.1999 passed by the learned Addl. Sessions Judge, Anoopgarh whereby the order date 17.12.1998 of the learned Judicial Magistrate rejecting the application of the petitioner was upheld.
(2.) The important questions involved in this petition are: (1) Whether an immoveable property can be taken possession by the police during investigation of a case ? (2) If so, whether an order for its interim custody can be passed under Sec. 451 Cr.P.C. by a Magistrate ?
(3.) Two r ulings of this Court, taking contrary view on the controversy involved in this petition, have been cited at the Bar. In the case of Mst. Narbada vs. Mohammad Hanif, 1982 RajLW 411 Hon'ble Mr. Justice K.S. Sidhu, as he then was, held that the word "property" used in Sec. 451 Cr.P.C. includes immoveable property also and the court may pass appropriate order under Sec. 451 Cr.P.C. for the interim custody of the said property. His lordship observed as follows: - "An immovable property which is seized and sealed by the police during the investigation, as was the case in respect of the shop in dispute in the instant case, becomes custodia legis immediately on the magistrate receiving the police report in that behalf and taking cognizance of the case on that basis." However, diametrically opposite view has been expressed in the case of Amrit Lal Kumawat & Ors. vs. State of Raj. & Anr., 1998 CrLR 780 (Raj.) by Hon'ble Justice A.K. Singh. It has been held that the police is not empowered to seize immovable property under Sec. 102 Cr.P.C. and the Magistrate has no power to pass any order under Sec. 451 Cr.P.C. for the interim custody of the immovable property.;