This revision petition arises from an order of the Chief Judicial Magistrate Darrang made on 22.12.90 in CR Case No. 1971 of J988 directing the petitioner Sheikh Mohammad Alam to produce the vehicle before the Court with a view to deliver the same to the opposite party Md Afajuddin Ahmed. 2. Facts, -In connection with CR Case No. 1971 of 1988 instituted by the complaint Mohammad Alam in the Court of the Chief Judicial Magistrate, Darrang against Binod PrasaJ and his brother, a truck bearing registration mark ASU 5721 was seized from the possession of the respondent AfajuJdin who was not a party in the case. On "8.5.89, the trial Judge acquitted the accused of all the charges and after the-conclusion of the trial, the Judge passed an order for delivery of the vehicle to the respondent Afajuddin Ahmed from whom the vehicle was seized. On appeal filed by the complainant-petitioner the Sessions Judge dismissed the appeal. Being aggrieved by the order of the Sessions Judge Criminal Revision No. 371 of 1990 was filed in this Court and this Court dismissed the revision petition on 31.10.90. Thereafter, the petitioner Sheikh Mohammad Alam filed Title Suit No. 36 of 1990 in the Court of the Assistant District Judge, Darrang against the accused in the criminal case impleading the respondent as a party. In the suit the petitioner filed an-application under O 39 Rules 1 and 2 for the injunction being Misc (J) No. 20/90. On 11.5.90, the trial Court issued an exparte interim injunction. The ad interim injunction runs as follows : "So an ad interim injunction is granted restraining the defendants opposite parties, their servants, agents, workmen, employees from interfering with the possession of the vehicle tata Truck No ASU 5721 for taking delivery of the vehicle from the plaintiff- petitioner until further order". On 22.12.90, on the application of the respondents, the Chief Judicial Magistrate made an order in CR Case No. 1971 of 1988 referred 10 above directing the petitioner to produce the vehicle on 29.12.90 for delivery of the same to the respondent herein. But on 29.12.90, the petitioner was absent and, therefore, 8.1.91 was fixed for the production of the vehicle by the petitioner. Hence this petition. 3.
But on 29.12.90, the petitioner was absent and, therefore, 8.1.91 was fixed for the production of the vehicle by the petitioner. Hence this petition. 3. The interim custody of the vehicle given to the petitioner during the pendency of the trial under 451, CrPC, in my judgment, is custodia legis, viz, property considered to be in the custody of the Court. Therefore, a party may be affected by the interim order of a Magistrate under section 451 and may cause some inconveniences or to some extent prejudice one party, but the possession of the vehicle can be treated as a possession of the party finally declared to be entitled to possession thereof, under section 452, CrPC. It is also equally true that a criminal Court cannot satisfactorily decide the question of title to the vehicle in a proceeding under section 452 as the proceeding under section 452 is not a legal process which is suited for an adjudication of complicated question and order passed under section 452 of the Code of Criminal Procedure does not confer title on any person. Therefore, the unsuccessful party may move to the civil Court for appropriate relief. The civil Court has jurisdiction to give a finding different from what the Magistrate had reached, i.e the decree of the civil Court is binding on the criminal Court in such a matter. 4. The question then is, - Whether the concluded order under section 452, after the trial made by a Magistrate of competent jurisdiction should be set at naught merely because an unsuccessful party has approached the civil Court ? It would depend upon the circumstance of its case. 5. For the implementation or execution of the concluded order of the Magistrate under section 452, the respondent filed the application for delivery of the vehicle to him. The injunction may amount to restraining the respondent from prosecuting a judicial proceeding pending before the institution of the suit. However, I am not expressing any opinion as to such an interim injunction can be passed in view of the provisions under clauses (a) and (b) of section 43 of the Specific Relief Act at this stage.
The injunction may amount to restraining the respondent from prosecuting a judicial proceeding pending before the institution of the suit. However, I am not expressing any opinion as to such an interim injunction can be passed in view of the provisions under clauses (a) and (b) of section 43 of the Specific Relief Act at this stage. On the facts and in the circumstances of the case, I am of the view that at this stage if it is ordered and directed that the Magistrate shall take the vehicle into his custody and keep the same under police custody or otherwise as he seems fit without delivery of the vehicle to any one of parties till disposal of interim injunction matter by the trial Court, it will be proper. I do so accordingly. 6. In the result, the learned Chief Judicial Magistrate, Darrang shall have the custody of the vehicle in question till the disposal of the injunction matter by the trial Court as directed above and then shall dispose of the vehicle according to the result of the injunction matter. This disposer of the petition.