Judgment ( 1 ) ORDER :- Heard the learned Public Prosecutor. None appeared on behalf of the non-petitioner. ( 2 ) BY this petition u/s. 482, Cr. P. C. , the petitioner has prayed that the order dated 1st May, 1996 passed by the learned Additional Sessions Judge, Pali in Criminal Revision No. 8/94 whereby the learned Additional Sessions Judge set aside the order dated 23rd November, 1993 passed by the learned Judicial Magistrate, Ist Class, Sumerpur in Criminal Case No. 326/93 and awarded compensation to the tune of Rs. 25,000/- to the non-petitioner and made it payable by the petitioner. ( 3 ) THE learned Public Prosecutor has submitted that the learned Additional Sessions Judge, Pali has erred in law as well as facts in accepting the revision petition and awarding compensation to the non-petitioner. It is further submitted by the learned Public Prosecutor that S. 457, Cr. P. C. does not provide for award of compensation to the person, who is entitled to possession of the property, and therefore, the order passed by the learned Additional Sessions Judge is without jurisdiction. It is further submitted by the learned Public Prosecutor that the car which was seized by the police was kept at the Police Station and on account of short circuit in the electric wiring the car was damaged and there was no negligence on the part of the police officers of the police station. It is further submitted by the learned Public Prosecutor that the determination of compensation can be done by Civil Court only and in any case, the award of compensation to the extent of Rs. 25,000/- is not justified. He has, therefore, prayed that the impugned order dated 1st May, 1996 passed by the learned Additional Sessions Judge, Pali be quashed and set aside and the order passed by the learned Judicial Magistrate be restored. ( 4 ) I have carefully considered the arguments advanced by the learned Public Prosecutor, the reasons given by the learned Additional Sessions Judge for awarding compensation and perused the record of the case. ( 5 ) IT appears that on 9th March, 1990, the Station House Officer of the Police Station, Takhatgarh submitted a report in writing before the Munsif and Judicial Magistrate, Sumerpur. ( 5 ) IT appears that on 9th March, 1990, the Station House Officer of the Police Station, Takhatgarh submitted a report in writing before the Munsif and Judicial Magistrate, Sumerpur. In that report, it was stated that on 6th March, 90, one Assistant Sub-Inspector, Udai Singh and some constables of the police were patrolling, they saw the car No. GRD 7475 coming along the pathway which was besides the canal. In the car, two persons were sitting. On enquiry, the driver of the car told his name as Chhagan Lal and the other person, who was travelling in the car told his name as Chautha Ram. On conducting a search of the car, 16 hamlas" made of iron were recovered and no satisfactory explanation for possessing the same was given. Therefore, the "dhamlas" as well as the car were seized u/s/ 102, Cr. P. C. and Chhagan Lal and Chautha Ram were arrested u/s. 109, Cr. P. C. Chhagan Lal and Chautha Ram were produced before the Sub-Divisional Magistrate on 7th March, 1990 and they were released on bail. Regarding the car seized by the A. S. I. , the report was submitted under S. 457, Cr. P. C. with a prayer that suitable orders be passed about the car as well as 16 hamlas" of iron, which were seized by the police. ( 6 ) ON 8th April, 1991, an application was submitted on behalf of Chautha Ram in which it was stated that car No. GRD 7475 had been destroyed by fire and therefore, a surveyor should be appointed. After hearing the counsel for Chautha Ram and the Public Prosecutor, the learned Judicial Magistrate directed the Branch Manager, United Insurance Company, Sumerpur to send a report after making a survey of the car. The entry made in the Roznamcha of the Police Station on 22nd May, 1990 shows that on 22nd May, 1990, Sabir Mohammed, Constable, who was on guard duty from 2 p. m. to 6 p. m. gave information to A. S. I. Udai Singh that fire had set in car No. GRD 7475 all of a sudden and fire was extinguished by pouring on it water and sand. It was further stated by Sabir Mohammed that the electric wiring, seats and other material, which was inside the car had been damaged and a loss to the extent of Rs. 3,000/- had been caused. It was further stated by Sabir Mohammed that the electric wiring, seats and other material, which was inside the car had been damaged and a loss to the extent of Rs. 3,000/- had been caused. ( 7 ) THE information given to A. S. I. Udai Singh was recorded in the Roznamcha on 3rd August, 1990. The Station House Officer of the Police Station, Takhatgarh submitted an application in the Court of Munsif and Judicial Magistrate, Sumerpur, in which it was stated that on 22nd May, 1990, the car suddenly caught fire and on account of burning, the wiring etc. had been damaged. It was further mentioned in the report that fire was set in either on account of a spark or short circuit in the electric wiring of the car. It was further mentioned in the report that the real cause of burning of the car could not be ascertained and that nobody was responsible for the damage. ( 8 ) SHRI S. L. Lunia, Surveyor, Investigator and Valuer, submitted his report in the Court of Munsif and Judicial Magistrate, Sumerpur. According to his report, the loss caused to the car was to the tune of Rs. 8,415/ -. The Surveyor had taken photographs of the car, which was also submitted by him with the report. A sum of Rs. 927/- was charged by the Surveyor. ( 9 ) THE learned Munsif and Judicial Magistrate, Sumerpur gave opportunity to non-petitioner Chautha Ram and to the S. H. O. of the Police Station to produce their evidence. Sabir Mohammed, constable, who was on guard duty at the Police Station on 22nd May, 1990 was examined. He gave statement to the effect that car had been placed safely at the Police Station and all of a sudden fire was set in the car and that police officers were not negligent in any manner. In cross-examination, he told that the car was standing in the open and although, there was a guest house near the place where the car was stationed, there was no guest in the guest house on that day and the staff quarters were about 50 meters away from the place where the car was stationed. In cross-examination, he told that the car was standing in the open and although, there was a guest house near the place where the car was stationed, there was no guest in the guest house on that day and the staff quarters were about 50 meters away from the place where the car was stationed. ( 10 ) AFTER hearing the arguments of the parties and taking into consideration the evidence, the learned Munsif and Judicial Magistrate declined to grant any compensation for the damage caused to the car. The non-petitioner filed a revision petition, which was decided by the learned Additional Sessions Judge, Pali. The learned Additional Sessions Judge, Pali by his order dated 1st May, 1996 allowed the revision petition and awarded a compensation to the tune of Rs. 25,000/- to the non-petitioner. The learned Additional Sessions Judge relied on Smt. Basva Kom Dyamangouda Patil v. State of Mysore, (1977) 4 SCC 358 : (1977 Cri LJ 1141) and Ganesh v. State of Rajasthan, (1987) 2 Rajasthan LR 331 : (1988 Cri LJ 475) for taking the view that it was competent for him to award compensation as the car had been damaged when it was in possession of the police. So far as the amount of compensation was concerned, the learned Additional Sessions Judge held that the car was of 1964 model and, therefore, a compensation to the tune of Rs. 25,000/- was just and proper. ( 11 ) IN Smt. Basavva Kom Dyamangouda Patil v. State of Mysore, ( (1977) 4 SCC 358 : (1977 Cri LJ 1141), the Honble Supreme Court has held that since the seizure of a property is reported to the Magistrate by the police, the Magistrate acquires control over that property and the Court exercises an overall control on the actions of the police officers in every case where it has taken cognizance. The Honble Supreme Court observed (at pp. 1142 and 1143 of Cri LJ) :-"the object and scheme of the various provisions of the Code appear to be that where the property which has been the subject-matter of an offence is seized by the police it ought not to be retained in the custody of the Court or of the police for any time longer than what is absolutely necessary. As the seizure of the property by the police amounts to a clear entrustment of the property to a Government servant, the idea is that the property should be restored to the original owner after the necessity to retain it ceases. It is manifest that there may be two stages when the property may be returned to the owner. In the first place it may be returned during any enquiry or trial. This may particularly be necessary where the property concerned is subject to speedy or natural decay. There may be other compelling reasons also which may justify the disposal of the property to the owner or otherwise in the interest of justice. The High Court and the Sessions Judge proceeded on the footing that one of the essential requirements of the Code is that the articles concerned must be produced before the Court or should be in its custody. The object of the Code seems to be that any property is in the control of the Court either directly or indirectly should be disposed of by the Court and a just and proper order should be passed by the Court regarding its disposal. In a criminal case, the police always acts under the direct control of the Court and has to take orders from it at every stage of an inquiry or trial. In this broad sense, therefore, the Court exercises an overall control on the actions of the police officers in every case where it has taken cognizance. xxx xxx xxx xxxit appears from the finding of the High Court that immediately after the articles were recovered by the police and the police submitted a charge-sheet to the Chief Judicial Magistrate, it produced the articles before the Court, but the Court directed the Sub-Inspector to retain the property until the same is verified and valued by a goldsmith for which the court moved the higher authorities for sanction of necessary funds. The Sub-Inspector was also directed to bring the goldsmith. In these circumstances, the Sub-Inspector took back the articles and kept them in the Guard Room of the police station. It would thus appear that the articles were actually produced before the Court but were retained by the Sub-Inspector under the direction of the Court. The Sub-Inspector was also directed to bring the goldsmith. In these circumstances, the Sub-Inspector took back the articles and kept them in the Guard Room of the police station. It would thus appear that the articles were actually produced before the Court but were retained by the Sub-Inspector under the direction of the Court. A production before the Court does not mean physical custody or possession by the Court, but includes even control exercised by the Court by passing an order regarding the custody of the articles. In the instant case when once the Magistrate, after having been informed that the articles were produced before the Court, directed the Sub-Inspector to keep them with him in safe custody, to get them verified and valued by a goldsmith, the articles were undoubtedly produced before the Court and became custodia legis. " ( 12 ) REGARDING the liability of the State, the Honble Supreme Court observed (at p. 1143 of Cri LJ) :-"where the property is stolen, lost or destroyed and there is no prima facie defence made out that the State or its officers had taken due care and caution to protect the property, the Magistrate may, in an appropriate case, where the ends of justice so require, order payment of the value of the property. We do not agree with the view of the High Court that once the articles are not available with the Court, the court has no power to do anything in the matter and is utterly helpless. " ( 13 ) IN view of above observations of the Honble Supreme Court, it can be said without hesitation that if the property seized by the police and kept in its custody is stolen, lost or otherwise destroyed, in suitable cases, the Magistrate may award compensation to the owner of the property, subject of course to the condition that there is no prima facie defence made out that the State or its officers had taken due care and caution to protect the property. ( 14 ) IN the instant case the car was stationed at the Police Station in an open place, which was at a distance of 50 meters from the staff quarters. The photographs produced by the Surveyor along with his report show that near the car, there was a huge pile of wood. ( 14 ) IN the instant case the car was stationed at the Police Station in an open place, which was at a distance of 50 meters from the staff quarters. The photographs produced by the Surveyor along with his report show that near the car, there was a huge pile of wood. The report of the police shows that car was burnt on 22nd May, 1990 at about 4 p. m. and at that time constable Sabir Mohammed was on duty and soon after the fire was detected, steps were taken to extinguish the fire and fire was actually extinguished so that only the electric wiring and some other articles were damaged and the whole could not be damaged. The evidence of Sabir Mohammed further shows that neither any police officer nor any other person was near the car when it started burning and, therefore, there is no possibility that any police officer or any other person might have set fire to the car. In the instant case, the police officers pleaded from the beginning that they were not responsible for the fire in the car though the real cause of the fire could not be ascertained by them. ( 15 ) THE report of the Surveyor shows that the cause of fire might be due to electric short circuit in the electric system of the car. His report further shows that although, engine had been heated, but was not damaged though it needed overhauling. Gear Box was bent and heated, but it was alright. Electric wiring was completely burnt. The battery cells were broken and heated and battery wires had been burnt. The body had been dented. Dash Board had been heated, bent and deshaped. Meter panel had been burnt. All meters and switches had been burnt and damaged. Roof upholstery, doors upholstery and Dash Board upholstry had been completely burnt. Front and Rear seats had been completely burnt. Steering wheel assy and Horn were damaged. Tyres were airless but there was no damage to them. Fuel tank and its lines were found O. K. The total damage which had been caused to the car, was to the extent of Rs. 8415/ -. ( 16 ) THE learned Additional Sessions Judge has awarded compensation on the ground that the car was damaged while it was in custody of the police. Fuel tank and its lines were found O. K. The total damage which had been caused to the car, was to the extent of Rs. 8415/ -. ( 16 ) THE learned Additional Sessions Judge has awarded compensation on the ground that the car was damaged while it was in custody of the police. The learned Additional Sessions Judge has not considered whether the State is liable to pay damages even if there was no neglect on the part of the police officers in safely keeping the car at the police station. The learned Additional Sessions Judge has awarded a compensation of Rs. 25,000/- solely on the ground that the car was of 1965 model. He has not cared to refer to the report given by the Surveyor which shows that the damage caused to the car in terms of cost of spares and repairs was not more than Rupees 8,500/ -. ( 17 ) AFTER carefully considering the facts and circumstances of the case, it must be said that the award of damage to the extent of Rs. 25,000/- was improper and unwarranted. Even if the State were responsible to pay the damages, the amount of damages could not exceed Rs. 8,500/-, which include the price of spares as well as the price of repairs as per report given by the Surveyor. It is immaterial whether the car was of 1965 model. In any case, the award of compensation to the tune of Rs. 25,000/- was unjustified. ( 18 ) THE learned Additional Sessions Judge has not considered the defence set up by the State. The defence set up by the State was that the police officers were not responsible for the fire, which had been set in the car and that the fire might have been caused by short circuit in the electric wiring. In fact, the report given by the Surveyor shows that the cause of fire might have been short circuit in the wiring of the car. The statement of the constable, who was on guard duty at the Police Station when the car was burnt proves that nobody was near the car when the car started burning. In fact, the report given by the Surveyor shows that the cause of fire might have been short circuit in the wiring of the car. The statement of the constable, who was on guard duty at the Police Station when the car was burnt proves that nobody was near the car when the car started burning. In these circumstances, having regard to the statement of the Constable on guard duty, the report of the Surveyor and the place where the car was stationed, the most reasonable inference that can be drawn is that the fire had been caused by short circuit in the electric wiring, for which neither a police officer nor any person was responsible. The evidence produced by the police further shows that since fire was detected, attempt was made to extinguish fire by pouring sand and water on it and much damage could not be caused to the car. The Dash board, meter, upholstery as well as the seats and some other parts were damaged, but engine and Gear Box as well as tyres etc. were not damaged. In view of these circumstances, it is difficult to say that any officer of the State was responsible for the damage, which was caused to the car. ( 19 ) THE observations of the Honble Supreme Court in Smt. Basavva Kom Dyamangouda Patil v. State of Mysore, (1977) 4 SCC 358 : (1977 Cri LJ 1141) lay down the law that where property is stolen, lost or destroyed and there is no prima facie defence made out that the State or its officers had taken due care and caution to protect the property, the Magistrate may in appropriate case, where the ends of justice require order payment of the value of the property. It means that if there is a prima facie defence made out that the State or its officers had taken due care and caution to protect the property, then no damages would be payable to the owner of the property. The damage caused to a property by an accident for which the State or its officers were not responsible or the damage, which was caused in spite of taking due caution and care by the State or its officers to protect the property, are not such damages as deserve to be compensated by award of compensation to the owner of the property. ( 20 ) IN the instant case, the police officers have prima facie proved that they were not responsible for the fire, which damaged the car. It is also proved by the facts and circumstances of the case that fire in the car in all probability was caused by short circuit in the electric wiring of the car and the police officers could not have known that a short circuit in the electric wiring of the car was likely to occur. In these circumstances, it must be held that the State and its officers were not negligent in keeping the car safely at the Police Station and that they had taken due care and caution to protect the car. In the circumstances above, the award of compensation for the damaged car was wholly unjustified. It may be pointed out that damage of this kind can be caused to any car at any time by a short circuit in the electric wring of a motor vehicle and unless, it could be shown that the S. H. O. of the Police Station knew or he could have known that the car was likely to catch fire on account of a short circuit, it cannot be said that the S. H. O. of the Police Station or his subordinates were in any manner responsible for the damage to the car. ( 21 ) FOR the reasons mentioned above, the petition deserved to be allowed, because the impugned order passed by the learned Additional Sessions Judge, Pali amounts to abuse of the process of the Court and has been passed by the learned Additional Sessions Judge without considering the defence set up by the S. H. O. of the Police Station that no police officer was responsible for the damage to the car. The impugned order deserves to be quashed and set aside and is hereby quashed and set aside and the order passed by the learned Judicial Magistrate, Sumerpur is restored. Petition allowed.