 If the case is rejected in an application, and how do you get those, what is the disposal of property and what does it matter? Section 451, primarily deals under the criminal procedure court, court of criminal procedure. And keeping in view the important aspect, we had requested Mr. Anandupi, a former district and session judge, principal district session judge from Karnataka to take his insights. All his webinars are doing extremely well on the Beyond Law CLC YouTube channel. If thought subscribed, you can subscribe to that. And we would also like if you can comment upon them, as to how did you find the speaker or what topic you want, we'll cherish that. Without taking much time, I would ask Mr. Anandupi to share his knowledge on this important aspect. Over to you, sir. Ah, namaste. Good afternoon, all. Thank you, Sri. Vikas, Serath, my esteemed viewers, jurist, advocate, law police torrents, and also the public in general. The topic is very vast. Topic is very interesting. The main thirst is, if the police seizes any property, from any person in any offense or criminal case, how the person being owner or agent of the owner, or even a financier, or a third party can lay claim from the court and ask the court to grant him interior portion of the seized property by the police or by various authorities. This is a very important question with which the trial courts everyday, infrequently deals with, especially those courts who work as magistrates or CGM or court officials, and even the high courts also on the revision side or appeal side also, here in dispose of the matters challenging order of the trial court or the court of revision regarding allowing or dismissing the IA file by the applicant for release of the property seized as an entity measure pending dispose of the case. When I got here, sections 45012, 459 of the CRPC, and the very important are 451, that is 451, 452, and 457 of CRPC. So there are chiefly two types of IS which the applicants may find. Firstly, seeking for interior release of the seized property where the IAO or the police have seized the property and produced the same before the court by submission of property form, the short form is P of property form, that is the first segment, section is 451 of CRPC. The second point is there is seizure of property by the police, but the said thing of seizure is not, I mean the thing seized is not produced before the court. So 451 leads with seizure of property, number two probably produced before the magistrate. In case of 457, property is seized, but the said property is not produced before the court. So court is not the custodian in the second case, the first case court is the custodian of the property. That is the important things with which we are concerned. My focus is to deal with the aspects of the case laws of the apex court or the principles which the courts must keep in mind before allowing or disavowing the claim made by the applicant or applicants or rival claimants seeking interim custody of the seized items or seized product. And we have got here various special criminal statutes under which also the respective IOs seize the thing say I got the forest act, where I got the Indian payers act, where I got the essential commodities act, where I got what do you call food safety standards act, where I got also arms act. So like that where I got so many specific enactments which empower the corresponding officer or authority in question to seize the thing under the relevant provisions of the special statutes under criminal law. Whether in those cases the court can apply the same yardstick as under section 415 of CRPC or not, or whether the provisions of the special statutes regarding custody of the property to be given, they prevail over the general principles of the CRPC under sections 451 of the CRPC. One more point is seizure of vehicles by the police and for long the set applications are not ordered by the consent courts. Or there is a case of rival claimants X says I'm the owner, Y says I'm the financier, Z says I'm a prospect to bear off the vehicle. So in case of rival disputes or rival claims, the vehicles brought within the precincts of the law courts or the precincts of the police stations. In that case, what are the guidelines of the Supreme Court of India? Seizure of narcotic drugs, seizure of contravents, whether the special courts in the Indie based act had the power under section 52, capital A of the Indie based act or not. Or whether the criminal courts or the special courts have no power at all to release a vehicle seized by the I Wander Indie based act. Can you apply the principles of section 451 of CRPC in case of release of a vehicle seized by the authority under the presence of Indie based act for its contravention? What about the aspect of seizure of a vehicle, seizure of a truck transporting sand without permit and the act is Mines and Minds Development and Regulation Act. There comes the aspect of Essential Commodities Act. There, the deputy commissioner or the district collector has got the power to release the seized vehicle. Whether the criminal courts can step in and pass order and direct the authority under the EC and the law that to deliver to the given person the custody of the seized truck as the order of a criminal court as blood of order of JNFCR not. All these niceties we'll discuss in the body of our brief study of one hour or one and a quarter hour and before that we'll take quickly section 451 of CRPC. That states that what court must do while considering the application filed by the applicant for custody of the seized item, seized property by the police pending further trial of the case that in crime stage the police or the Ivo or the authority seizes the given property and the applicant may go on the property, may move the court what court must do. So section 451 of the CRPC states that the property seized by the police or authority should have been produced before the magistrate or before the criminal court to clothe the criminal court with the power of passing order regarding interim custody of the seized vehicle or the seized product or seized property. So there should be production of the property before the criminal court in an inquiry or trial. What is called as inquiry? What is called as trial? We'll take it up at the next point. So the first point is there should be production of property by the authority or the police in case of commission of an offense. And section 457 of CRPC, there is no production of property by the police or authority, but here it is mandatory. There should be production of property by the Ivo before the criminal court in an inquiry or trial. And then after the court can pass order as an interim measure pending conclusion of the trial of the main matter or criminal case. And if the products or property seized are subject to speedy decay or natural decay. And if the court cannot wait for long to trace the owner or to consider the level claims of some applicants, the court may record evidence and dispose of the property which is subject to speedy and natural decay and credit to its account the amount of sale proceeds. Here the word property is defined as including any document also which the police seizes. So in a given case, the police seizes what is called as the passport of the particular offender under the partners act. They seize the passport. So a passport is called as a document and that passport being a document is called as property for section 451 of the CRPC. So property also includes a document which is produced before the criminal court by the concerned authority who seizes the same. So property of any kind or document which is produced before the court and if they are in the court's custody then the court has the power to grant or pass order stating as to whom it must be given as an interim measure. The second point is the court disperses of the main criminal case while passing order on the main criminal case of acquittal or conviction of the accused. The court must pass further order or section 452 of CRPC, 452 CRPC with regard to the property whether the interim order is made absolute or not. So the court must pass further order as to the position or otherwise of the seized property whether seized property is liable for destruction, liable for confiscation or whether court can pass order to deliver property to a guilty person. All these things the court must work out when the main case is concluded and at that time it must pass a final order regarding disposal of the property because the proceedings get concluded. The third point is destruction of libelous or other matters on connection of the accused for sections 272 to 275 of the IPC or sections 292 to 294 of the IPC. So if there is seizure of what is called as libelous and other matters by a publisher, the court may pass order for destruction of the libelous matter or materials or copies of the books as the case may be. In case of seizure of the drinks, food drinks or drugs or medicine preparations by a manufacturer of medicines and the offenses of sections 272 to 295 of the IPC, the court may pass order of destruction of the food, drink, drug or medicinal preparations. The next point is section 457 of the CRPC. So here the property is seized by the police and the seizure is reported by the police to the magistrate and in this case, the property is not produced before the court by the police. In 451 there is production of property. In 457 the property is not produced by the IO or by the police as the case may be before the criminal court during inquiry or trial. Then also the applicant too, the consentor, IA can move the court for release of the property even though the property seized by the police is not produced before the magistrate. And here the only point people release, the police must report the fact of seizure to the magistrate and if it is there, the matter ends, then even though the property seized is not produced by the police before the magistrate, the magistrate can pass order at whom the property should go as an interim measure. Then comes section 102 of the CRPC. Section 102 states that every police after seizure of any property should report forthwith the fact of seizure to the jurisdiction magistrate for information. So today at 10 o'clock the police releases a motor car. In a criminal case, car was used for transcoding what's called as timber of the government of India. So there must be seizure of the property and this fact of seizure must be reported by the consent officer seizing it on section 102 of the CRPC. The next point is what is called as inquiry? What is called as trial under section 451 of the CRPC? Section 451 of CRPC speaks of trial, speaks of inquiry and in this case, the police seizes the property because of complaint and in this case, the court is required to inquire or try the case. So here the word inquiry is defined in section two sublogue of CRPC. The word inquiry is defined in section two of the CRPC as meaning every inquiry other than a trial which a magistrate or a criminal court conducts with regard to a criminal case. So inquiry means every inquiry other than a trial. So filing of IA by the applicant for release of the property that's called as inquiry of the matter. And here the police have not filed charge sheet. One charge sheet is filed and the court frames charge and post matter for evidence of the prosecution. Then we say that the trial begins. So the word trial in section 2G is not defined in the CRPC. Trial means upon charge sheet by the police before the court against the accused. The court frame charge informs the accused that on these lines the case will go forward and we say upon frame of charge, the case is set to be for the stage of the trial. So 2G of the CRPC defines the word inquiry as meaning every inquiry other than a trial under CRPC. So sections 451 and 457 of CRPC deal with seizure of property by the police and in the first case, seizure is reported to the court and there is the thing being produced by the police before the magistrate. In the second case, the things seized is reported but the fact of its production is not there in the second case. But in both cases, the court has to inquire, the court has to try the case and then proceed forward. With this we take quickly the case law of the apex court on various aspects of development of sections 451 and 457 of the CRPC. We'll take a case of rival claims by Asi owner of a truck and the rival claim made by the financier of the truck. Financier, say a bank, State Bank of India advances loan to a loanee or a borrower to purchase a good truck. And suppose for example, this vehicle meets with an accident on us, the vehicle is told when in custody of the particular RC owner and the vehicle is traced to the police. And before the court, Asi owner moves the court to release the vehicle to him. The financier also goes to the same court and press application saying that due to me the vehicle is custody because there are dues of the borrower on the loan availed by the RC owner. So what about rates of the rival claimants in case of higher purchase agreement or in case of vehicle finance by a bank or a private financial institution to a borrower to buy a vehicle or a truck or a car as the case may be. Here the first case is Charanjit Singh Chhada versus Sudhir Mehta 2001 part seven Supreme Court cases 417, sections 24, 406, 420, 120 B 378 of the IPC and section 481 of the CRPC and also sections 8 and 20 of higher purchase act. In this case, the question involved was to whom the criminal court must give the interim custody of the seized vehicle which was stolen as per the complaint of the RC owner. In this case, the Supreme Court held in clear words that even though the RC owner finds his name in the certificate of registration but still the Supreme Court held that under section two suppose 30 of the Indian Motor Vehicles Act of 1988 it is the financier which is the owner of the seized vehicle because it has got its charge on the vehicle seized. In this case, the Supreme Court held that the RC owner as per the RC book cannot claim the vehicle custody in the trial or inquiry and in case of rival claims by the RC owner or the borrower of the concerned vehicle and also the financier or the company which financed the vehicle on higher purchase agreement HPA the Supreme Court held that the vehicle must be given to the financier and not to the RC owner because there are still dues of the amount to be paid by the principal borrower with regard to the loan transaction. So this is the first case of the Supreme Court on the aspects of price of RC owner and rights of the financier or financial institution or in case of higher purchase agreement what about the rights of the parties that is the case of Charanjit Singh Chhada versus Sudheel Mahita. The second case is Damodar Valley Corporation versus state of Bihar AIR 1961 Supreme Court page 440 in this case Damodar court held that in case of a higher purchase agreement it is in fact the one who gives the property to the higher for user. He is called as the I mean the higher purchaser and on fulfillment of terms of the HPA he becomes the full owner of the property. Damodar court held that third party rights are created as per law in case of higher purchase agreement even though the name of the higher purchaser is shown in the RC book as the RC owner and name of the financier is stated as the person who gave loan as per the higher purchase agreement. The rest case law is K. L. Johar and company versus CTO AIR 1965 Supreme Court page number 1082. Here also the first court held that in case of higher purchase agreement it consists of firstly element of bailment and secondly element of bail in the sense that there is a further sale of the vehicle or property once the particular borrower or a higher fulfills the terms of the contract. That is case of K. L. Johar and company versus Close your video somehow. Yeah, it's fine. No, again close. Yeah, no, it's fine. The third case is Sundarbai Ambalal Desai versus state of Gujarat. Very, very important case that is 2002 part 10 Supreme Court cases page 283. Sections 451 of CRPC and section 451 of CRPC. Disposal of Muddamal articles kept in police custody pending trial in this case. The facts involved were that seized gold ornaments kept by the police in the police station, seized by the police in the criminal case. They were replaced by the police machinery by keeping inside scurious ornaments, duplicate ornaments. So in this case, gold ornaments seized in a criminal case by the police were not produced before the criminal court. Number two, they were replaced by the police only by keeping inside the seized what do you call box spurious things or duplicate ornaments. So in this case, the apex court late on various guidelines which the trial courts must follow in case of seizure of what's called as precious stones, gold, silver, currency notes, vehicles or liquor, narcotic drugs, et cetera. The apex court late on various guidelines and at time number seven, it late on four important guidelines to be followed by the trial courts, to be followed by the police. The first point is the principles on which this case law is developed is owner of article should not suffer because of its remaining with the police or the court for long. With the police, they live for one year or the court they live for one year. The first point is owner of article would not suffer because of its remaining unused or by its misappropriation. In the court's hand also, the property may just be stolen before the police also the thing may get disappeared. The second point is court or the police would not be required to keep the articles in safe custody for long time. Say for one week I can keep it for two weeks I can keep it but not for long. The third point is if proper Panchanama before handing out portion of the seized article is prepared that Panchanama will serve as a document of seizure stating it description, its valuation and all those things. So in this case, keep with you photocopy of the seized articles or keep with you with a group of seized articles prepare Panchanama and hand over property to the concerned owner of the case may be and if necessary evidence can be recorded by the court describing its nature in detail. The fourth point is this jurisdiction of the record in the form of evidence should be exercised promptly and there should not be long delay on the part of the particular person. So here the important point is namely these are the four important parameters which the Supreme Court observed at Parampar 7 of the judgment. At Parampar 12 of the judgment the Supreme Court also laid an important guidelines prepare detailed property Panchanama of the article seized may be gold or silver or currency notes or even what you call intoxicants or liquor in the case may be take photographs of its articles and take a bond from the person in question to the effect that he will produce the same before the court during trial. The third point is take proper security from the person go back to RC owner, the vehicle go back to the owner of jewels, the gold ornaments take from her or him a bond, an empty bond with security as the case may be and those things the Supreme Court laid down in the above particular case. At Parampar 14 of the judgment the Supreme Court also stated that in case the properties are not given to the complainant or to the person from whom it is seized or to the rebel claimant before the court then the Supreme Court part order saying that the same the property can be sold and the amount will be recovered and kept in the bank or if the properties cannot be sold or if they are to be retained keep them in bank lockers don't keep them in the lockers of the consent police station lock or after consent court it is called as safe after court so they passed order retain them in bank locker by the police or by the magistrate they can keep it for one week if it is beyond one week then they say keep it in bank locker and for courts the system is court seizes the property gold ornaments or currency also it won't retain it with it for more than even 24 hours on the same day by after phone the property seized being very valuable they are lodged by the court in the office of the treasury office of the county state government so treasury offices are there at Tollacurly district level and they lodge it in the treasury office in the safe custody of the treasury that is the aspect of the practice of the trial course to whom the police produces valuables gold ornaments or silver ornaments or studied articles or ornaments your currency also as the case may be one more point is in case of seizure of vehicles tapas court held give back to the RC owner in case of no other rival claims forthwith take bond put conditions don't keep the vehicle in the police station or in the court if the rival claims to decide as to whom it can be given and then go forward and if no claimants are there to take the vehicle then issue order of proclamation which is noticed to RC owner noticed to insurance company noticed to other person as the case may be financed here if nobody appears issue the proclamation fix rate for sale sell it and put the amount in the account of the court in case of other items also tapas court laid down various guidelines so I will not take much time on the case of Sunderbhai Ambalal Desai versus state of Gujarat in case of part 10 SCC 283 this is the bible for the trial courts in my opinion this case law is of the year 2002 it is now a 2 decade old case law but still based on ratio of this case the trial courts pass order releasing property in favor of persons who are to be given portion of the property the next case is poli seizes gold ornaments and polis reports the matter to the consent court and court passes order retain gold ornaments with you until filing of charge it because in case of theft of gold ornaments poli says we want it we want to keep it with us because if the owner makes claim we have to show to him the gold ornaments for purpose of identification and in this case the polis may say that they require the particular thing with them gold ornaments in this case huge cash and large number of ornaments gold ornaments silver ornaments worth more than rupees 10,000 were seized by the polis in 1958 so it is a case of nearly I mean 60 years I mean 6 decades old so in 1958 in the night of November 28 of 1958 there was theft of huge cash gold ornaments etc from house of the complainant and see her name is Shreemati Basava wife of Damanagoda Patil it is a case of the polisation of Harveery that is a district place in Antarctica that is orbiting the national highway number 4 and there was seizure of and there was theft of these huge amount of cash and large number of ornaments so she lost complaint before the polis and polis seized the same from the thief and the thief was Bukkura upon seizure the court directed the polis to return with them until they file charge it so these things they remain with the polis or the polisation because the polis was required to show these seized ornaments to the complainant for purpose of identification and it so happened that fire accused were traced and from them they seized cash and gold ornaments etc and the polis had reported to the concerned magistrate the fact of seizure of gold ornaments from the hands of the fire accused and CJM of Harveery the polis to retain the seized articles with it and to get the value of gold ornaments determined by a goldsmith and for that that requires time to examine the gold piece by piece they have to weigh it they will see its purity so that takes even a week or two weeks when the articles were in the control of Harveery polisation and they were in the guard room of the polisation and they were in a trunk and at some time the PSI was transferred and the new PSI came the new PSI while taking charge wanted to take custody of these gold ornaments which was in the trunk and to a surprise there were no gold ornaments there were no cash which the polisized seized from the particular fire accused in the criminal case then the PSI put in charge reported to the higher ups saying that I took charge today and I could not take possession of the seized gold ornaments and reported the lapse on the part of the previous PSI because gold ornaments cash kept in the sealed trunk in the guard room of polisation it did not contain those items they contained some other papers in fact they contained some stones as per the case law which the facts is being stated there were those called as finding of stones in the particular trunk and this particular woman the complainant applied to the magistrate at Haveri for release of the seized item seized gold ornaments and polis filed of the actions saying that this article with them and the magistrate held that the articles were not produced by the police before the court but that there filed only the report and court had permitted the police to keep the things with it for purpose of investigation and since the articles never reached the custody of the court the magistrate held that it has no power to pass order for granting custody of the seized gold ornaments and cash by the police from those five accused persons so the owner of gold ornaments suffered a negative order then she applied in revision 2 the court officials the petition also dismissed by the complainant then after the matter went to the high court high court also passed order saying that these ornaments those seized by the police and though the court had directed the gold ornaments to be with the control of the police and since they are not in the control of the court after 2 courts below are proper so the complainant approached Supreme Court of India I have lost my gold ornaments I have lost my currency notes and police had seen the same and in the police custody when they were there there was replacement of ornaments and cash by stones so the upper court held that the magistrate committed illegality in dismissing the year filed by the owner of the gold ornaments the upper court held that the fact that the seizure of the articles gold ornaments was reported by the police to the magistrate and the magistrate passed an order stating that you retain these ornaments until you file charges and until you get completed the work of getting the evolution of the properties the upper court held that custody of the property does not mean physical custody or portion of the property if the court is given the application by the police or the concerned IO to the fact that we have seized a given thing and if the court passes an order retain these seized properties with you until filing of charges the upper court held that custody does not mean physical delivery or portion of the ornaments or things or articles or property by the police to the court in this case the upper court held that the magistrate court the court officials and the high court committed illegality it held that the magistrate should have passed order along with the application even though the property was not there you got to pass order determine its value and ask the police machinery to pay to the complainant the value of the lost ornaments so in this case the upper court came down very heavily on the trial court the court of revision the high court and there are 7 of the order the court observed that value of property stolen was rupees 10,000 it directed the state government to pay to the complainant for which 10,000 this is the value say 64 years ago so now it must be a fortune amount then also a fortune amount so the vice court held that the state government shall pay to the complainant rupees 10,000 being value of the property which was lost by the police in its guard room at police station and you have time of 3 months to the concerned police to pay the amount of rupees 10,000 to the complainant so this case law states in clear words that in case of loss of the properties at the hands of the court or at the hands of the police and if the factum of see there is reported by the police to the magistrate the magistrate has got the power to pass order if there are lost means the court has to direct the police or the wrongdoer to pay to the person who is the owner its value or cost of the property so misappropriated or so lost as the case may be that is the case of Srimati Basava wife of Damangoda party versus state of Mysore 1977 part 4 SCC page number 358 so with this I have discussed the aspect of rights of the financier versus rights of of the owner of an item owner of property which is seized being lost when in police custody or when in custody of the court he can get what is called as the value of the property which is lost the next case law is state of MP versus Rameshwar Rathod 1990 part 4 SCC page number 1849 sections 6 capital A surplus 1 and 7 of the essential commodities act and sections 451 and 457 of the CRPC so under the EC Act the deputy commissioner or the collector of the strict has got the power to release the property sealed by his authorities or his inferiors so the collector of the district has got the power to release the sealed truck say transporting wheat without permit or transporting wheat of a fair priced shop so wheat or rice etc which was meant for sale through fair price shops now we know these black marketies they just buy from the fair price shop owner fair price shop owner will not sell them to the ration cart holders and this particular container was seized containing wheat in a given case so season of truck was there by the officer under the essential commodities act and there the officer is the applicant too the applicant can move the court move the deputy commissioner or collector for release of the seized vehicle or seized thing as the case may be so whether that particular power given to the collector under the EC Act can the magistrate exerciser or section 457 of CRPC not is the question involved so in the case of state of MP versus Rameshwar Rathur the apex court held that even though the essential commodities act state that any person whose vehicle is seized by the authority under EC Act has to move the collector for release of the seized vehicle so seized by the officer under the EC Act but still the power of the criminal court is not completely ousted on section 457 of CRPC so the apex court at paragraph 6 of the edition observed that normally on a CRPC criminal courts of the country have the jurisdiction and ouster of the ordinary criminal court in respect of a crime can only be inferred if that is the conclusion following the verdict of the act EC Act did not say or does not say anywhere that criminal courts of the country cannot grant release of property it states no one can move the DC or collector for release of the vehicle but since the EC Act does not contain what is called as a specific covenant that criminal courts have enough power to deal with the matter the apex court held that criminal courts of the country have the jurisdiction and ouster of the jurisdiction must be specifically stated in the body of the special statute so the apex court held that order of the magistrate has got the power to order for release of the seized vehicle under provisions of section 6 and 6 capital A of the EC Act so with this you took the case law the apex court on the essential commodities act the point is wild life protection act 1972 seizure under wild life production act whether the criminal courts have got the power or whether only the forest assaults under the wild life production act have got the power the case law is state of state of UP versus Lallu Singh L L L L Lallu Singh that is 2007 part 3 crimes supreme court page 224 so in this case the apex court in the case of Lallu Singh observed that attractions 50 suppose one of the wild life production act in this case the officials empowered under the wild life act have got the power to release the property seized and in case it states that the officer under the wild life production act should form proper opinion as to whether the property seized becomes property of the state government or not if you hold that the property becomes property of the state government and that that property was used by the accused to commit the offence then the magistrate has no power to release the thing seized by the authority under the wild life production act that was court held that the magistrate has to see if the official had formed belief on reasonable grounds that the person committed the offences under the wild life act so if the officer of the wild life act forms opinion that the seized property become property of the state government then magistrate has no power if it does not form opinion that the property seized is not property of the state government then magistrate can step in and can pass order that depends upon nature of formation of the opinion by the authority under sections 39 and 15 of wild life production act of 1982 so with this the next point is namely the case law of the up next court inter continental agencies forever imitate versus Amin, Chand, Khanna and others sections 451 of CRPC is involved here here the facts involved in the above case is namely there was loss of the property seized by the police and in this case the up next court held that if there is loss of property seized by the police either in the custody of the police station or before the court as per decision of Supreme Court of India Basava versus Shetha Mysore has told me previously the concerned applicant must receive the value of the property so lost or so misappropriated so the case of inter continental agencies is again a case involving the same ratio of Basava, Khom, Damanagoda, Patil versus state of Mysore so in this case there was seizure of bus upon seizure of bus the bus was stolen the bus was not recovered at all by the police thereafter so the officer of the vehicle moved the court given the bus and the police informed the vehicle is not traceable vehicle is stolen as we know the concerned persons they just separate all the parts and even they sell separately the doors the windows even the seat as the case may be and even they may just convert the entire body of the concerned vehicle as a complete sheet so there is total loss of the particular vehicle vehicle was not traced at all the upper court held that owner of vehicle must get the value of the vehicle which was with the police in their custody and from which there was theft of the seized bus by the thief and the vehicle not being traced by the concerned police in spite of taking sufficient steps so with that the next important case law on the above point is the case of Ashok Kumar versus state of Bihar that is 2001 part 9 Supreme Court cases page number 718 718 in this case the seized by the police was rotting in the compound of the court complex for number of years vehicle was seized by the police and the police upon seizure produced the vehicle before the concerned court and this vehicle was rotting in the compound of the court for number of years the owner might not have just approached the court for custody or the banker may have just also kept quite or if there is no bank finance then in case of seizure offenses nobody will come to claim the property if the claim means then they admit that they are the culprits so there was no claim of the seized vehicle which was lost in compound of the court for a long number of years the best court directed the trial courts in the country as the para 2 of the above order saying that court must not keep with it a vehicle in its court compound for a long time till disposal of the main case main criminal case and it must to the RC owner with conditions if he is not there means take steps it is a proclamation and you can take the further steps that is the case law of Ashok Kumar v. state of Bihar so with that the next important case of the apex court is namely state of Karnataka v. K Krishnan that is 2000 part 7 Supreme Court cases page number 80 section 71 capital A of the Karnataka forest act so various special statutes have got separate sets of procedure regarding release of the seized article so in this case the apex court had para 7 observed that if any vehicle is seized on the allegation by the I.O that it was used for committing a forest offense the apex court held the same shall not be released in favor of the RC owner also until the main case is over so no question of release of the vehicle seized by the office under the forest act if it was used for commission of a forest offense the apex court held that wait for disposal of the main matter until then don't release the property the vehicle because under the forest act the power is there for the court to confiscate the vehicle to the state court so at para 7 the apex court order that when any vehicle is used is seized by the by the authority for committing a forest offense under the forest act the same shall not be normally be returned to a party until all the proceedings are over including proceedings of confiscation it held that in fit cases a court is inclined to release the vehicle to a person in custody it must take bank guarantee don't take simply bond take for the vehicle's value bank guarantee with sureties for the likes of so you want to release release with a rider take from the RC owner bank guarantee but not a simple bond that is the ratio of state of Karnataka versus Christian 2000 part 7 supreme court cases page number 80 so I have discussed case law of the special acts forest act case law of wildlife protection act case law of essential commodities act case law of heritage act see we have got there separate sets of rules and there in some cases as we have discussed CRBC has no application the next question is if the property seized by the police in a criminal case is not produced before the magistrate can the magistrate has got the power to release such property which is seized by the concerned police but not produced before the court here comes section fourth discern of the CRBC the case law is Ram Prakash Sharma versus state of Haryana 1978 part 2 supreme court cases page number 491 so in this case police recovered huge sum of money from the appellant and the same was seized and in this case the said seizure was reported by the police to the court but the cash amount seized was not produced before the criminal court so the criminal court held the supreme court held the magistrate has got the power to order for release of the seized property in this case the currency notes seized by the police were missing the court held that the owner of the said currency notes or the component must be given the amount of money which was circulated because of act of the police so even though the property seized was with the police only and the property seized was not delivered by the police before the magistrate but still the magistrate has got the power to release the property and if they are lost at the hands of the police the court can direct the police to reimburse the amount so lost or misappropriated by the concerned police so this the next important case law of the applies court is namely Sajan K. Varghese versus state of Kerala 1989 part 2 Supreme Court cases page number 208 in this case there was seizure of semi-finished films of a film which was being shot up to 90% so the police seized was called as the video of a film which was shot to the extent of 90% and this particular video containing shooting of 90% of a Malayale film or seized by the police in a criminal case lodged like an actor Sajan K. Varghese who is producer of a film Kerala so this Varghese had borrowed huge sums of money from various investors by saying that I will invest your funds in producing a film I will give you very heavy returns and many depositors they deposited their hard-earned money in deposits with this Sajan K. Varghese and at the end of the day the Sajan K. Varghese did not return to the depositors and they filed complaints and Varghese was arrested by the police and the police seized what is called as semi-finished film role of a Malayale film and in this case the apex court held that semi-finished film role is not a property intersection of the CRPC because until the entire film is shot in full and the film is ready for the public in the theater the apex court held that the seizure of a film in a case of complaint against Sajan K. Varghese by the investors of their monies police could not have seized the particular semi-finished film role in this case it directed the trial court to release to the particular person what is called as semi-finished film role in this case so I have discussed as to how the scope of the world property was used by the court in case of Sajan K. Varghese versus state of Kerala it is a very important case touching some niceties of law so with this the next point is Ramesh Chand Jain versus the state of Haryana that is 2007 part 15 Supreme Court cases page number 26 in this case whether a criminal court can decide rates of rival claimants involving a civil dispute or not whether criminal court has got a power in a criminal forum wherein two persons have laid claim on the property seized say a vehicle is seized say I say I am the RC owner X says he is the RC owner M says I am the buyer of the vehicle from the seller so whether criminal court has got a power to decide on interstate disputes between rival claimants that is RC owner of truck the bank has financed guarantor and borrower disputes are even in case of a buyer of a vehicle buying the vehicle from the seller even though loan amount is due on the set vehicle so in this case the press court held that rights of rival claimants which is purely civil in nature the criminal court cannot embark on a trail so the criminal court cannot decide interstate civil liberties of the parties may be RC owner the banker, the financier the guarantor as the case may be and bank must pass order only giving the inter-crashity of the seized vehicle as an interior measure court has no power in the criminal forum for reason of property what is called as interstate civil liberties between RC owner, the principal power the banker, the financier and the guarantor so with that the next case law is state of MP versus Madhukar Rao there is 2008 part 14 SSCC made number 6 24 in the case of wildlife protection act so season of vehicle by the first authority for commission of offence on the forest act sections are 15, sub laws 1, sub laws c that with the of the forest I mean the wildlife protection act the press court held that the magistrate to order for release of the seized vehicle section 15, sub laws 1, sub laws c of wildlife protection act so these case laws they just tell us how special criminal statutes they have got special law and how the particular regular criminal courts have no power to release the seized property the next case is state NCT Delhi versus Narendra 2014 part 13 SSCC made number 100 in the case of deli excise act in this case a vehicle transporting liquor bottles was seized as per deli excise act the authority to release the vehicle is the officer under the excise act but not the criminal courts so the press court held that because being a special statute the deli excise act stating that the arts owner can move authority under the excise act but not the court the press court held that JFC deli has no power to release the seized truck which was seized by the authority for illegally transporting liquor bottles so with that I have completed the aspects of case law of the press court important aspects of the law and I have got also some more case law on the point but still because of lack of time I cannot proceed further I will take only last two case laws Nevada properties private limited state of Maharashtra 2019 20 Supreme Court cases page number 119 119 so in this case power of seizure under sections 102 and 47 does not extend to immobile properties so property used in sections 451 and 47 means only properties which are immobile including documents but not properties which are immobile so a person being owner of property which is immobile cannot move the criminal court due to him the custody of the portion of the property immobile even as an interior measure so the apex court observed that the word produced in sections 457 and 102 of the CRPC means actual or physical production which would apply to property immobile and immobile property cannot be produced in a court that is the case law of the apex court in the case of Nevada properties versus state of Maharashtra 2019 part 20 Supreme Court cases page number 119 so last case law is case law of NDPS act section 52 capital A of NDPS act so the authority under NDPS act or the poise under the general statutes she is a vehicle a car transcoding non-coding drug so she is an effect car whether police, local police or authority under the NDPS act and the vehicle was used to transport for is called as non-coding drug whether the criminal courts have got the power to release the said property or not is the question with which we are concerned the question is whether the criminal courts have got the power to release the said property used by the accused for commission of section 52 capital A of NDPS act or not here the case law of the appeal court is there on the ever point there is a 2016 part 3 supreme court cases page 379 union mohan lull and another so the case of mohan lull that is the 2016 part 3 scc 379 state that regular criminal courts machete court special court under NDPS act they are no power to order for the release of vehicle seized by local police seized by the office under NDPS act which was used by the accused to transport NDPS act section 52 capital A of NDPS act criminal court has no power at all to release a car or vehicle or container used to transport NDPS act and the question is which court should move for release of vehicle seized car is seized criminal court has no power then which court can grant the vehicle custody it is drugs disposal committee they want to authority court as drugs disposal committee before that committee the RC owner should move application this vehicle under 52 A of NDPS act for release of the seized vehicle in the case of in the case 5 years old that is 2016 part 3 court cases page number 379 para number 31 31.1 very important disposal of property even interim also only by drugs disposal committee but not by magistrate or by the special court for NDPS offenses so with this I completed the brief study on the aspect of case law of the apex court under CRPC under special criminal statutes as to how in some cases CRPC section 451 has no application so courts cannot pass order in a casual way but they deal with aspect of special statutes so see the special statutes see the gift on the point and then go covered the advocates also should know sharply in which case their application will be allowed and with regard to the other aspects and if the court does not know properly what the lawyers advocate should empower the court as you all know nobody is perfect nobody can claim that even the apex court appoints amicus curie for what purpose because it wants from an expert in a given field because on the aspect the court may not have all the important inputs so with this I conclude my talk on the aspect of CRPC property CRPC documents CRPC vehicles I mean articles, drugs as the case may be you are investigating liquors and with regard to rates of financiers rates of RC owner rates of third party loss of the item seized when in the police station or in the court duty of the court to direct the police to return to the applicant it's a value at the case may be right now we don't have any question as such but on youtube yes we have sir could you explain the difference between section 451 and 457 and whether these are orders or interlock free and if so whether these order are advisable or not hello hello it says what is the difference between section 451 and 457 and whether these orders are interlock free if so whether they are advisable now order passed by the court on PA is called as an interlocutary order and on the interlocutary order revision lies to the court of section 450 I mean under section 397 of the CRPC so that is a order the court of sections the order being passed by what's called as the trial court, GMC court order passed by the special court of the rank of a court of sections then the matter is in revision to the high court so the depends upon the forum so 451 is a case of passing a order by the court which is what is called as interlocutary order and under section 459 of the CRPC power to sell perishable property if the person entitled to is not known or is absent and the property is subject to speedy and natural decay or if sale is for one fact of the owner so when the court can sell property if there are perishables and the owner is not known there is section 459 but the answer is order of the court on IA for release of the property is an order which can be revised before the court of revision it may be a court of issuance or it may be the high court as the case may be in a possible case for the release of vehicle the court sends notice to the complainant is it mandatory is it mandatory sending a notice to the complainant there is no need for the court to inform the complainant that they are hearing a matter say in a criminal case the property is seen by the police the property is seen is say namely a vehicle the complainant is injured the vehicle is seized by the police the arse owner removes the court for release of the vehicle so only the state and the arse owner the parties with which the court must hear the victim or the complainant is taken care of by the court by the state only so the victim has no right to be heard under CRPC for release of the seized article or seized item because in case of complaint of the victim the state commissioner enters and the victim his rights are protected by the state only he is saying how would it be divisible in view of the bar under section 397 that no revision lies in an interlockary order but see in some cases the point is that some courts are held that order passed by the magistrate is not an order which is revisible but still at the end of the day the court is required to pass order as to whether the IHT is to be allowed or not at the end of the day the matter may go to the IHT as to whether the right of a party seized will culminate into right at the main end of the case is not a main issue but where got case law of the apex court also case law of high courts also which states that order passed by the magistrate court other being or disillusioned by any person for intermission of the vehicle as a case may be another which is liable for revision before the court officials and we got here the case law of our court also on the very same point that is a case of the High Court of Canada in case of Caesar of marketing drugs under the presence of NDPS fact and this in fact an underport addition of the High Court of Canada in this case the case is Jubaita wife of late Mohammed Ali versus narcotic control Brio NCB Bangalore criminal petition number 3792 of 2020 data order is 2411 2020 in this case vehicle seized by the officer of NDPS at Bangalore that vehicle contained narcotic drugs so the RC owner of the vehicle, RC owner is from Canada he moved the whistle court after rank of citizen judge at Bangalore city court all number 33 for release of swift car seized by the author tender NDPS act the said court whistle court of NDPS act dismissed the IA file by RC owner on the ground that it has no power then the RC owner moved the court in criminal revision and petition but not criminal appeal because the case title is criminal petition number 4792 of 2020 and even the High Court passed order stating that revision petition is maintainable it held that the Supreme Court of India which it told previously of the year 2016 it held that magistrate or special court has no power to order for release of the seized vehicle and it directed the RC owner to move the next disposed committee under NDPS act at Bangalore for release of the seized vehicle in this case our court based landsaw decision of Mohanlal case of that is 2016 part 3 SCC page number 379 so order passed by court on IA under SCC is revisable now this is a protocol a mind boggling exercise looks very simple but when we lay hands before the court involving special statutes then comes the main difficulty other cases accident cases, seizure of bus seizure of car very simple but these special statutes are prescribed special procedure to even give the property back to the owner even as an in theory measure under section 143 A of the negotiable instrument act organ section 451 of CRPC being moved to execute the interim compensation now 143 capital A of the NI act is introduced in 2018 there the offences under section 138 of the N act check was issued, check bonds and the complainant complies the procedure of giving notice then no amount is paid then if filed before the criminal court what is called as a parent complaint on section 200 of CRPC so here interim compensation the court can pass if the complaints are lost from and after I think the date is 1 9 2018 if I am correct so if it there means as an interim measure the court can direct the accused to pay to the complainant the person whose check was bounced because of the respond accused not keeping in his account balance and this particular complainant issued a bond before the criminal court saying that in case my case at the fact end is held as not maintainable or if the accused is acquitted of the charge of section 138 of N act the court will direct this complainant to return to the accused the amount which the accused had paid to the complainant as an interim compensation under 143 capital A of N act so this 143K cannot be tagged with section 451 of the CRPC and if the particular complainant does not pay to the accused the amount which was paid to him as interim compensation then under N act only cannot be recovered as area of land review the procedure under N act 143A I will also it can grant interim compensation they have fixed up the scale they got their case law of the apex court on the above point also but we cannot link 143A of N act with section 451 of the CRPC and in fact N act is what is called as a semi civil nature trial even though it is called as a crime under N act but its scope is as if there is trial of a civil case and there the purpose of N act is to restore to the complainant the amount of check which was dishonoured that is the main purpose of penalised the accused person even though he is called in law as an accused still he is of the rank of an opponent or different in a regular civil case we have taken the questions now right now I thought its over what is the procedure of releasing the seized vehicle under the section 38 of the Delhi excise act I don't know whether you will be able to say that there Delhi excise act was invoked by the authority under the excise act a truck was transporting illegally this liquor liquor was transported without permit or it may be liquor which was stolen without any permit or without any advices in this case as per Delhi excise act they have got the authority who has got the power to release the seized vehicle for hundreds of poisons of the Delhi excise act the happens court held that when special statute states the officer who has to be moved for release of the seized vehicle then that remedy only must be exhausted without any power it held that JFC Delhi has no power to release the seized truck which was seized by the authority under the Delhi excise act it be a special criminal statute in case of special criminal statutes those provisions prevailed over poisons of the CRPC section 45 CRPC thank you sir for sharing your insights and we just thought that you would be taking us to the gamut of 451 and 201 particular act but you have taken us to the white spectrum of the knowledge we are indebted for that and tomorrow we will be having a session on impleading a baitment setting aside of a baitment and condonation of Delhi that is we will be discussing order 22 of the court of civil procedure court so do join us justice KT Sankaran a former judge Kerala Hykot and the former chairman of the Kerala judicial academy would connect with us at 430 but do stay connected with us tomorrow and thank you sir once again