Daya Shanker Pandey vs Rajendra Prasad Singh and Another

S.I. Jafri, J.—Daya Shanker Pandey applicant has filed this application u/s 482 Code of Criminal Procedure seeking to quash the judgment and order dated 2-8-1986 passed by special Judge, Ghazipur in Criminal Revision No. 102/1986 and No. 110 of 1986, whereby the learned Special Judge, directed the delivery of truck bearing No. B.R.Z. 1971 to Rajendra Prasad Singh, opposite party No. 1. The aforesaid application was admitted by this Court on 6-8-1986 and the operation of the order dated 2-8-1986 was also stayed.

The aforesaid Truck was taken to Police Station Zamania, District Ghazipur by Ram Raj Pandey, nephew of Daya Shanker Pandey applicant on 25-4-1986 as a consequence of difference which cropped up between Daya Shanker Pandey, applicant and Rajendra Prasad Singh, opposite party No. 1 over the possession of the truck and it was handed over in the custody of the Police.

The case of the applicant was that the aforesaid Truck B.R.Z. 1971 was previously owned by Defendant and the same was purchased by him on 29-9-1986 for a consideration of a sum of Rs. 60000/- but later on cordial relations between the applicant and the opposite party No. 1 soured with the result that the opposite party No. 1 entertained the icea to take forcible possession of the aforesaid truck from the ''applicant. Under the circumstances, the police of Police Station Zamania seized the aforesaid truck. Both the parties i.e. the applicant and the opposite party Rajendra Prasad Singh applied before the Magistrate for the release of the truck in their favour. However, the learned Chief Judicial Magistrate, who had also been apprised of the pendency of the Civil suit over the ownership of the truck, refrained from passing any order for the delivery of truck to either party, but directed them to seek orders about the custody of the truck from the civil Court. However, the learned Chief Judicial Magistrate directed the police of Police Station Zamania to continue to detain the truck in its possession till the matter is resolved by the civil Court.

Dissatisfied by the aforesaid order of the learned Chief Judicial Magistrate, both the parties went to in revision before the Court of Sessions. The applicant filed Criminal revision No. 110 of 1986 while the opposite party Rajendra Prasad Singh filed Criminal Revision No. 102 of 1986. The learned Sessions Judge after hearing the learned Counsel for the parties, disposed of the aforesaid revisions by a common judgment by order dated 2-8-1986 thereby directing the release of the aforesaid truck in favour of opposite party No. 2 Rajendra Prasad Singh. Feeling aggrieved by the aforesaid order, applicant Daya Shanker has invoked this Court''s inherent jurisdiction u/s 482 Code of Criminal Procedure for redress.

It was contended by the learned Counsel for applicant that the Criminal Court is vested with no jurisdiction to release the truck in favour of Rajendra Prasad Singh, opposite party No. 1 and in support of his contention, reliance has been placed on 1976 ACC 306, Dhanu Mal v. Sher Mohd. Khan wherein the Hon''ble Single Judge of this Court held that Magistrate has no jurisdiction to pass orders regarding the disposal of the seized property during investigation of the case u/s 457(i) of the Code of Criminal Procedure 1973. On the other hand, learned Counsel for opposite party No. 1 has drawn my attention to 1978 ACR 140 : Ajai Singh Vs. Nathi Lal and Another, wherein a Division Bench of this Court had over-ruled the aforesaid law laid down in 1976 ACC 306. The Bench held that the Criminal Courts have jurisdiction to dispose of the property seized during investigation, enquiry and trial u/s 457 Code of Criminal Procedure. The learned Counsel further placed reliance on 1978 ACR 380, Ram Prakash Sharma v. State of Haryana, wherein it was held by the Supreme Court that Criminal Court is vested with power to order the release of the property seized from any person in connection with an offence even though the property was not produced before the Court and the trial has not commenced. The learned Counsel further submitted that the argument advanced by the learned Counsel for the applicant that since the truck was not the subject matter of any criminal case, the criminal Court has no power to release it also carries no substance on merit. Reliance was placed on 1978 ACC 1 : 1977 ACR 463, Dakshni Prasad v. State where the High Court had invoked its jurisdiction by releasing the Car which was found by the police abandoned on the street. The learned Counsel further pointed out that inview of the amendment in Section 102 Code of Criminal Procedure, Criminal Courts have been conferred with jurisdiction to dispose of the seized property by the Police during investigation, enquiry and trial or otherwise. The said amendment (Sub-section (3) of Section 102 Code of Criminal Procedure) is reproduced below:

(3) Every police officer acting under Sub-section (1) shall forthwith report the seizure to the Magistrate having jurisdiction and where the property seized is such that it cannot be conveniently Transported to the Court, he may give custody thereof to any person of his executing a bond undertaking to produce the property before the Court as and when required and to give effect to the further orders of the Court as to the disposal of the same.

Lastly, the assertion of the applicant that he had purchased the aforesaid truck from opposite party No. 1 on a consideration of Rs. 60000/-, is subject to grave doubts. The alleged sale-deed dated 24-4-1986 executed by Rajendra Prasad Singh in favour of the applicant is admittedly not registered. Moreover, vide order dated 20-5-1986 (annexure C.A. 3) while disposing of the injunction application moved by Daya Shanker Pandey applicant, the learned Civil Judge, Ghazipur has held in Suit No. 78 of 1986 that the sale-deed dated 24-4-1986 alleged to be executed by Rajendra Prasad Singh in favour of the applicant is prima-facie a forged and fake document. Moreover, it is not denied by the applicant that Rajendra Prasad Singh is a registered owner. Under the circumstance, the applicant has no legs to stand. I also do not find any infirmity in the order dated 2-8-1986 passed by Special Judge, Ghazipur directing the release of truck in favour of Rajendra Prasad opposite party No. 1.

In view of the discussions enumerated above, I hold that criminal Courts have jurisdiction to dispose of the property seized by the police even if it is found abandoned by the police at a public place and the property not being connected with any offence.

In the result, the application filed by Daya Shanker Pandey applicant is dismissed as devoid of merit. The stay order passed by this Court dated 6-8-1986 is vacated. The Chief Judicial Magistrate, Ghazipur is directed to issue instructions to the Station Officer, Police Station, Zamania District Ghazipur to make over the Truck No. B.I.Z. 1971 to Rajendra Prasad Singh forthwith.