( 1 ) IN this petition filed under Sec. 482 of the Crlpc, 1973 (hereinafter referred to as Crlpc), what is assailed and sought to be quashed is an order purporting to have been made under S. 451 Crlpc by the Chief judicial Magistrate, Bijapur on 17-7-1976 in Criminal Case 961/1976, which has been confirmed by the Sessions Judge, Bijapur, by his order dated 29-10-1976. ( 2 ) THE learned Magistrate, by the impugned order, has directed the tractor bearing MYJ-5467 and the Trailer bearing MYJ-5468 to be given to the custody of the respondent Shivalingappa on his executing a bond in a sum of Rs. 25,000 and on condition that he should produce them before court whenever required, and, that order he passed in the following circumstances : The respondent, it is undisputed, purchased the said tractor and Trailer for a sum of Rs. 60,000 and paid a sum of Rs. 13,000 and for the balance he raised a loan of Rs. 47,000 from the primary Land development Bank, Bijapur, by hypothecating the said Tractor and trailer and on the security of his lands, and paid it. However, on 28-6-76 the petitioner Gurappa filed a complaint before the learned Magistrate against the respondent, inter alia alleging that on 17-10-1975 the respondent agreed to sell to him the said Tractor and Trailer for a sum of rs. 47,000 and executed an agreement of sale, that on the same day he paid a sum of Rs. 2,000 to the respondent and on the next day i. e. 18-10-75 the respondent put him in possession of the said Tractor and Trailer, and that thereafter he paid a further sum of Rs. 11. 500 as per the terms of the said agreement both to the respondent and the Bank in all amounting to Rs. 13,500, and despite the same to his surprise on 4-6-1976 the respondent dishonestly took away the Tractor and Trailerfrom Ganapath Chowk at Bijapur where they were stationed, without his knowledge or consent. On the basis of the allegations contained in the said complaint and the sworn statement of the petitioner the learned Magistrate registered a case for an offence under S. 420 of IPC and directed issue of summons to the respondent. On the basis of the allegations contained in the said complaint and the sworn statement of the petitioner the learned Magistrate registered a case for an offence under S. 420 of IPC and directed issue of summons to the respondent. Then on the request made by the petitioner for issuing a search warrant, the learned Magistrate acceeded to his request and directed the concerned police to search the said Tractor and Trailer and produce them before Court. Pursuant thereto the police seized the Tractor and trailer which were in the possession of the respondent and produced them before court on 3-6-1976 and later the learned Magistrate delivered them to the police for safe custody. Then the petitioner moved the learned Magistrate with an application filed presumably under S 451 Crlpc to make an order in his favour for the interim custody of the Tractor and Trailer. It appears, while opposing that application the respondent too filed a similar application and sought for a similar order; what he contended was that the alleged agreement of sale is a sham and colourable transaction and in view of the provisions of S. 32 of the Co-operative Societies Act and S. 23 of the indian Contract Act the said agreement is void and unenforceable and the petitioner had not acquired any right, title or interest in or over the said Tractor and Trailer and the same is not binding on him; he denied that he put the petitioner in possession of the Tractor and Trailer or that the petitioner paid a sum of Rs. 13,500 in all as alleged. Regarding the R. C. Books and the receipts showing the purchases of oil and repairs to the said Tractor and Trailer, which the petitioner claim to be in possession, what the respondent contended was that he had given them to the petitioner so that he may pay taxes etc as he was looking after them on his behalf. Having considered the rival contentions the learned Magistrate took the view that it is just and proper to direct the Tractor and Trailer to be given to the custody of the respondent as according to him they were hypothecated to the said Bank and the respondent was required to repay the balance of the loan amount raised by him. Having considered the rival contentions the learned Magistrate took the view that it is just and proper to direct the Tractor and Trailer to be given to the custody of the respondent as according to him they were hypothecated to the said Bank and the respondent was required to repay the balance of the loan amount raised by him. What further weighed with the learned Magistrate while taking that view was the fact that the alleged agreement of sale was hit by the provisions of S. 32 of the co-operative Societies Act and S. 23 of the Indian Contract Act. In the view he took he made the impugned order. The learned Sessions Judge before whom that order was challenged took the same view and confirmed that order and while doing so this is what he stated :" Admittedly the Tractor was attached from the possession of the accused. The accused contends that he has been all along in possession of the Tractor. The complainant says that the possession of the Tractor was given to him. The fact whether possession of the tractor was in fact given to the complainant in pursuance of the alleged agreement of sale is a question of fact which has to be established at the trial. The learned Counsel for the complainant submitted that he has produced sufficient material to show that the tractor was in his possession. He also stated that he has produced r. C. Book and other documents pertaining to the Tractor to show that he was in possession of the same. But, the learned Counsel for the accused says that he had given the R. C. Book and other documents to the accused so that he may pay taxes on his behalf as he was looking after the management of the Tractor on his behalf. This fact has again to be established by the complainant. At this stage i think that the Tractor cannot be given to the possession of the complainant. I therefore find myself in agreement with the conclusion reached by the learned Chief Judicial Magistrate regarding the custody of the tractor till the disposal of the case. . . . . "now aggrieved by the said orders, the petitioner has approached this court with this petition. I therefore find myself in agreement with the conclusion reached by the learned Chief Judicial Magistrate regarding the custody of the tractor till the disposal of the case. . . . . "now aggrieved by the said orders, the petitioner has approached this court with this petition. ( 3 ) SRI K. A. Swami appearing for the petitioner while assailing the said two orders submitted that the Courts below were clearly in error in directing the Tractor and Trailer to be given to the custody of the respondent who is accused of an offence under Section 420 of IPC and against whom process is also issued for that offence. In other words, his argument was that in a case of this kind and in view of the provisions contained in S. 451 Crpc. it was not open to the Courts below to make such an order in favour of a person who is himself an accused, and as such the said orders are illegal and are liable to be quashed, and in support of his submission he relied upon the following observations of this Court in B. S. Shyama v. P. K. Rajashekhar, 1968 1 Myslj. 81. :" In the instant case also, it is clear that delivery of possession of prints and publicity materials to the accused for distributing and exhibiting them would enable them to earn money and further continue to commit the offence of breach of trust as contended by mr. Raikar. The complinant's case has been that during 1964 the accused exhibited and exploited this picture and they did not pay him the money out of the profits that were due to him ; it was on account of this he got them seized and produced before the Court. The learned magistrate instead of making arrangements for its interim custody, has gone beyond his power to investigate into the claims of both the parties and ultimately passed the final order delivering the possession of the prints and publicity materials to the accused. His order exceeded the scope of S. 516a Crlpc. (Corresponding to S. 451 Crpc.)" ( 4 ) I do not think the above observations support the submission made by Sri Swami, and in my opinion they do not even remotely suggest that in every case the Court while purporting to act under S. 451 Crpc. His order exceeded the scope of S. 516a Crlpc. (Corresponding to S. 451 Crpc.)" ( 4 ) I do not think the above observations support the submission made by Sri Swami, and in my opinion they do not even remotely suggest that in every case the Court while purporting to act under S. 451 Crpc. is precluded from making an order in favour of a person who is himself an accused in the case, and there is no warrant for such an extreme proposition. No doubt, in the decision relied upon by Sri Swami those observations were made in the peculiar circumstances of that case. But, that decision does not lay down that in no case the Court while purporting to act under s. 451 Crpc. can make an order under that Section in favour of a person who is himself an accused. S. 451 Crpc. which reads :" When any property is produced before any Criminal Court during any inquiry or trial, the Court may make such order as it thinks fit for the proper custody of such property pending the conclusion of the inquiry or trial, and, if the property is subject to speedy and natural decay or if it is otherwise expedient so to do, the Court may, after recording such evidence as it thinks necessary, order it to be sold or otherwise disposed of. Explanation : For the purposes of this section. 'property' includes,- (a) Property of any kind or document which is produced before the Court or which is in its custody, (b) any property regarding which an offence appears to have been committed or which appears to have been used for the commission of any offence. "does not admit of such a construction. Each case will be governed by its own facts and circumstances and it cannot be laid down as a broad proposition of law that in no case can the custody of the seized property be given either to the accused or to the complamant pending disposal of the main case. S. 451 Crpc. contains no such restriction nor can one be read between the lines. In the view I take, the said submission of Sri Swami has to be rejected. ( 5 ) THE words of S. 451 Crpc. S. 451 Crpc. contains no such restriction nor can one be read between the lines. In the view I take, the said submission of Sri Swami has to be rejected. ( 5 ) THE words of S. 451 Crpc. give v/ide discretion to a Court to make an order for the proper cutstody of the property seized and produced before Court pending the conclusion of the inquiry or trial. Of course, the discretion is required to bo exercised judicially and not arbitrarily or capriciously. Now the question is whether the discretion exercised in the case on hand is manifestly injudicious resulting in failure of justice. I have already adverted to the factors which weighed with the Courts below while making the impugned orders, and there is no basis to think that the discretionis not judicially exercised by them. What Section 451 crlpc contemplates is only interim custody till the conclusion of the inquiry or trial. The said tractor and trailer were indisputably seized from the custody of the respondent. Whether they were stealthily or dishonestly removed by him from the possession of the petitioner on the date alleged, whether the said agreement of sale is true and binding on the respondent, and the other rival contentions the parcies have raised, have yet to be considered as the learned Sessions Judge has remarked. But, in view of the admitted position that the tractor and trailer were seized from the custody of the respondent in pursuance of a search warrant issued at the instance of the petitioner and in view of the fact that they are hypothecated to the said Bank and the respondent is required to discharge the loan raised from that bank, it cannot be said that what the Courts below did in making the impugned orders is illegal or improper. The inherent power conferred on this Court by S. 482 Crpc. can be exercised only for any of the three purposes mentioned in the Section itself, and I do not think the case on hand fulfils the requirements of that Section. I am unable to see that interference with the said orders is necessary to secure the ends of justice. In the view I take this petition must fail and accordingly it is dismissed. The learned Magistrate, however, is directed to dispose of the case as expeditiously as possible. --- *** --- .