Research › Search › Judgment

Himachal Pradesh High Court · body

2017 DIGILAW 336 (HP)

Kuldeep Singh v. State of H. P.

2017-04-11

SANDEEP SHARMA

body2017
JUDGMENT : Sandeep Sharma, J. 1. By way of instant criminal revision petition filed under Sections 397/401 of the Criminal Procedure Code, the petitioner-applicant has laid challenge to the order dated 15.3.2017 passed by the learned Judicial Magistrate, Ist Class, Court No. 3 Mandi, District Mandi, passed in Criminal complaint No. 136/17, whereby the application for release of vehicle having been filed by the petitioner-applicant stood dismissed. 2. Briefly stated facts as emerge from the pleadings as well as impugned order having been passed by the learned court below suggests that the applicant petitioner preferred an application for interim release of vehicle bearing registration No. HP-33-1022 (LML Vespa) Scooter along with its documents and key, which was impounded by the police, police post Mandi, District Mandi, in case FIR No. 52/2017 dated 6.3.2017 under Section 39 of the HP Excise Act, 2011 (In short “the Act”). It also emerge from the impugned order passed by the learned trial Court that investigation in the case is/was complete and vehicle is/was no more required by the police. By way of application, the petitioner prayed for interim release of the vehicle in question on spurdari and stated that he is ready to furnish surety bonds of reasonable amounts and also will abide by all the terms and conditions, which shall be imposed by the Court. As per the report of the police, vehicle in question was being used to carry seven bottles of English wine (Green Label) and the applicant-petitioner is the actual owner of the vehicle and he used the scooter for commission of offence under Section 39 of the HP Excise Act. 3. Learned court below on the basis of police report as well as arguments having been made by the learned counsel representing the respondent-State rejected the application filed for interim custody of the vehicle in question having been filed by the petitioner-accused, by concluding that the Magistrate has no power to order for interim custody/release of the impounded vehicle. Learned court further concluded that only authorized officer as prescribed under Section 62 of the Act is empowered to confiscate or set penalty of the said vehicle. Learned court further concluded that only authorized officer as prescribed under Section 62 of the Act is empowered to confiscate or set penalty of the said vehicle. The petitioner applicant aggrieved and dis-satisfied with the aforesaid order having been passed by the learned trial Court has approached this Court by way of instant proceedings, praying therein for interim custody of vehicle after setting aside the impugned order dated 15.3.2017, passed by the learned court below. 4. Mr. H.S. Rangra, Advocate, representing the petitioner, vehemently argued that the impugned order passed by the court below is against the law and fact and as such, same cannot be allowed to sustain. While referring to the impugned order passed by the court below, Mr. Rangra, strenuously argued that court below has failed to exercise the jurisdiction vested in it by not giving the interim custody of vehicle in favour of the applicant-petitioner, who happened to be the owner of the vehicle. Mr. Rangra, while inviting attention of this Court to the impugned order passed by the learned trial Court also stated that police specifically stated before the Court that investigation in the case is complete and the vehicle is no more required by the police but despite aforesaid fact, learned trial Court failed to order for interim custody of vehicle in favour of the petitioner, which action of the court is illegal and deserves to be quashed and set-aside. Mr. Rangra, further contended that the court below failed to appreciate the fact that when police had conducted investigation and had submitted the challan before the Judicial Magistrate, it was only the court of learned judicial magistrate, which was competent to order for interim custody of the vehicle during the pendency of the trial. While specifically inviting attention of this court to the Section 51 of the Act, Mr. Rangra contended that provision of criminal procedure Code, 1973 are applicable in the present case and as such, learned court below wrongly and illegally interpreted the provisions of the Act and arrived at wrong conclusion that order for interim custody of vehicle could only be passed by the authorized officer as prescribed under Sections 61 and 62 of the Act. Rangra contended that provision of criminal procedure Code, 1973 are applicable in the present case and as such, learned court below wrongly and illegally interpreted the provisions of the Act and arrived at wrong conclusion that order for interim custody of vehicle could only be passed by the authorized officer as prescribed under Sections 61 and 62 of the Act. While concluding his arguments, learned counsel for the petitioner vehemently contended that Judicial magistrate, Ist Class is empowered to adjudicate all the matters/ trial under the said act and also competent to dispose the property/articles seized under the Act and as such, finding returned by the court below is totally perverse and same is required to be rectified in accordance with the law. Mr. Rangra, further contended that even the impugned order having been passed by the learned trial Court is totally contradictory because while refusing to pass order for interim custody, learned counsel itself has concluded that there is no specific bar in the Act for this Court to order interim custody of the vehicle in question to its owner. 5. Per contra, Mr. P.M. Negi, learned Additional Advocate General, duly assisted by Mr. Ramesh Thakur, learned Deputy Advocate General, representing the respondent-State supported the impugned order passed by the learned trial Court and stated that there is no illegality and infirmity in the same and same deserves to be upheld. While specifically referring to the impugned order passed by the learned trial Court, Mr. Negi contended that in the event of any seizure of vehicle or conveyance under the Act, power to confiscate such vehicle or investigation is vested in the Excise officer in charge of District, who is only authorized to confiscate the seized vehicle or accept penalty. Hence, learned trial Court has rightly concluded that the authorized officer as described under HP Excise Act, 2011 is only empowered to give the interim custody/release of the vehicle. While refuting the contention of learned counsel for the petitioner that provisions of Cr.PC are also applicable, Mr. Hence, learned trial Court has rightly concluded that the authorized officer as described under HP Excise Act, 2011 is only empowered to give the interim custody/release of the vehicle. While refuting the contention of learned counsel for the petitioner that provisions of Cr.PC are also applicable, Mr. Negi contended that only authorized officer is empowered to confiscate or accept penalty of seized vehicle under the Act and as such, power vested in Magistrate in terms of Section 451 of the Cr.PC for interim custody/release of the vehicle under the Cr.PC, cannot be invoked in such cases, especially when Excise Act is a special law and the same shall prevail upon the general law. Though, Mr. Negi during arguments having been made by him fairly stated that there is no specific bar in the HP Excise Act as far as jurisdiction of judicial Magistrate to release the vehicle is concerned but he stated that when there is specific provision with regard to confiscation/release of vehicle provided in the Act, learned court rightly chose not to exercise the power which vests with the Exercise Officer in-charge of District, for interim custody of vehicle. 6. I have heard learned counsel for the parties as well carefully gone through the record. 7. There is no dispute inter-se the parties qua the fact that police of police post Mandi, District Mandi, in excise of its power, under Section 9 of the HP Excise Act, 2011 registered a FIR bearing No. 52 of 2017 dated 6.3.2017, against the applicant-petitioner under Section 39 of HP Excise Act. By way of application, applicant-petitioner sought interim custody of vehicle in question on spurdari but learned trial Court rejected the same on the ground that order, if any, for interim custody can only be passed by the Excise Officer in charge of District, who in terms of Sections 60 to 64 of the HP Excise Act, 2011, is only competent authority to pass order of interim custody. 8. Before ascertaining the merit of the impugned order, it would be profitable to reproduce herein below Sections 60 to 64 of the HP Excise Act:- 60. 8. Before ascertaining the merit of the impugned order, it would be profitable to reproduce herein below Sections 60 to 64 of the HP Excise Act:- 60. Confiscation of article in respect of which offence committed: (1) Whenever an offence punishable under this Act has been committed,- (a) every liquor or excise bottle in respect of which such offence has been committed, together with the contents of such bottle, if any; (b) every still, utensil, implement or apparatus and all material in respect of or by means of which such offence has been committed; (c) every liquor or excise bottle lawfully imported, transported or manufactured, had in possession or sold alongwith or in addition to, any liquor liable to confiscation under clause (a); (d) every receptacle, package, container and covering in which any liquor, excise bottle, materials, still, utensil, implement or apparatus as aforesaid is or are found together with the other contents, if any, of such receptacle, package, container or covering; and (e) every cart, vessel, raft or other conveyance used in carrying such receptacle, package, container, covering or articles as aforesaid; shall be liable to confiscation. (2) when in the trial of any offence punishable under this Act, the Judicial magistrate decides that anything specified in clauses (a), (b), (c) or (d) of sub-section (1) is liable to confiscation, he may order confiscation thereof, except the liquor, the vehicle or the conveyance as specified in section 61. (2) when in the trial of any offence punishable under this Act, the Judicial magistrate decides that anything specified in clauses (a), (b), (c) or (d) of sub-section (1) is liable to confiscation, he may order confiscation thereof, except the liquor, the vehicle or the conveyance as specified in section 61. (3) When there is reason to believe that an offence under this Act has been committed, but the offender is not known or cannot be found and when anything liable to confiscation under this Act and not in the possession of any person cannot be satisfactory accounted for, the case shall be enquired into and determined by the Collector concerned, who may order confiscation thereof: Provided that no such order shall be made until the expiration of one month from the date of seizing the thing in question or without hearing the person, if any, claiming any right thereto, and considering the evidence, if any, which he produces in support of his claim: Provided further that if the thing in question is liable to speedy and natural decay or if the Collector concerned is of opinion that the sale of the thing in question would be for the benefit of its owner, he may, at any time, direct it to be sold; and the provisions of this section and section 62 shall, so far as may be, apply to the net proceeds of such sale. 61. Inspection and seizure of vehicle, conveyance and liquor liable to confiscation.- (1) Any Excise Officer may, if he has reasons to believe that a vehicle or conveyance has been or is being used in the commission of offence under section 39 of this Act, require the driver or other person-in–charge of such vehicle or conveyance to stop it and cause it to remain stationary as long as may reasonably be necessary to examine the contents in it and inspect all records relating thereto, which are in the possession of such driver or other person-in-charge of such vehicle or conveyance. (2) When there is reason to believe that an offence has been committed under section 39, in respect of any liquor, such liquor together with vehicle or conveyance used in committing such offence, may be seized by any Excise Officer. (2) When there is reason to believe that an offence has been committed under section 39, in respect of any liquor, such liquor together with vehicle or conveyance used in committing such offence, may be seized by any Excise Officer. (3) Every Excise Officer seizing any liquor or vehicle or conveyance under this section shall place on such liquor or vehicle or conveyance a mark indicating that the same has been seized and shall, as soon as may be, make a report of such seizure to the Excise Officer-in-charge of the district. (4) The Excise Officer seizing the liquor or vehicle or conveyance shall take appropriate steps for the safe custody of the liquor, vehicle or conveyance till the orders under Section 62 are passed by the Excise Officer-in-charge of the district. 62. Confiscation of vehicle or conveyance by Excise Officer in certain cases.-(1) Where an offence is believed to have been committed under section 39 of this Act, in respect of any liquor, the Excise Officer-in –charge of the district on being satisfied that the vehicle or conveyance has been used for commission of offence under section 39, may order confiscation of the vehicle or conveyance so seized together with the liquor. (2) Where the Excise Officer-in-charge of the district, after passing an order of confiscation under sub-section (1) , is of the opinion that it is expedient in the public interest so to do, he may order confiscated vehicle or conveyance or liquor to be sold by public auction, and the proceeds thereof, after deduction of the expenses of any such auction or other incidental expenses relating thereto, shall, where the order of the confiscation made under sub-section (1) is set aside or annulled by an order under section 68 or 69, be paid to the owner thereof or the person from whom it was seized. 63. Issue of show cause notice before confiscation under section 62.- (1) No order confiscating any vehicle or conveyance shall be made under section 62, except after notice in writing to the person from whom it is seized and the registered owner thereof, and considering their objections, if any. 63. Issue of show cause notice before confiscation under section 62.- (1) No order confiscating any vehicle or conveyance shall be made under section 62, except after notice in writing to the person from whom it is seized and the registered owner thereof, and considering their objections, if any. (2) Without prejudice to the provisions of subsection (1), no order confiscating any vehicle or conveyance shall be made under section 62 of this Act, if the owner of such vehicle or conveyance proves to the satisfaction of the Excise Officer-incharge of the district that it was used in carrying the liquor without the knowledge or connivance of the owner himself, his agent, if any, and the person-incharge of such vehicle or conveyance and that each of them had taken all reasonable and necessary precautions against such use: Provided that the confiscation made under section 62 of this Act shall not affect the punishment of the accused for the offence for which he is liable under this Act. 64. Penalty in lieu of confiscation- Notwithstanding anything contained in section 62, the Excise Officer-in-charge of the district may, in lieu of confiscation of the vehicle, accept by way of penalty a sum not exceeding the market price of the vehicle or the conveyance.” Careful perusal of the aforesaid provisions of law as contained in the Excise Act, clearly suggests that these provisions mainly deal with confiscation of vehicle, conveyance and liquor allegedly used for commission of offence under Section 39 of the Act. Similarly Section 9 of the Act empowers the Excise Officer, to investigate into the matter. It would be apt to reproduce the relevant paras of the Section 9 herein below:- “9. Power to investigate- (1) The State government may, by notification, invest any Excise Officer, with power to investigate any offence punishable under this Act, committed within the limits of the area in which the officer exercises jurisdiction. (2) Every officer so empowered may within those limits exercise the same powers in respect of such investigation as an officer-in-charge of a police station may exercise in a cognizable case under the provisions of Chapter XII of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973.” Aforesaid Section empowers the Excise Officer to investigate any offence punishable under this Act, committed within the limits of the area in which the officer exercises jurisdiction. Similarly Section 9 (2) also suggests that every officer so empowered by the State Government can also investigate any offence punishable under this Act committed within their territorial jurisdiction. 9. Section 60 of the Act suggests that conveyance and vehicle used in carrying such liquor in violation of provision of Act, shall be liable to confiscation. But careful perusal of Section 60 (2) suggests that if Judicial Magistrate comes to conclusion that anything specified in clauses (a) to (d) of sub-section (1) of Section 60 is liable, to be confiscated, he or she may order confiscation thereof, except the liquor, vehicle or the conveyance as specified under Section 61, meaning thereby, wherever the Judicial Magistrate comes to conclusion that there is a violation of aforesaid provisions of act, he/she may order for confiscation of the articles taken into custody at the time of registration of the case by the authority/Excise Department or police, who are empowered to investigate in terms of Section 9 of the Act, save and except liquor and vehicle involved in the case. Conjoint reading of Sections 60 to 64 clearly suggests that order of confiscation of liquor as well as vehicle impounded at the time of commission of offence can only be passed by the Excise Officer in-charge of District, who is vested with the power to pass order of confiscation. 10. Section 62 clearly provides that wherever the Excise Officer in charge of District is convinced and satisfied that the offence has been committed under Section 39 of the Act, and the vehicle or conveyance has been used for commission of offence, he/she may order for the confiscation of the vehicle or conveyance so seized together with the liquor, Section 63 of the Act further provides that before passing any order of confiscation of any vehicle or conveyance, authority concerned is bound to issue notice to the person from whom it is seized and registered owner thereof. Section 64 suggests that Excise Officer, in-charge of District may accept penalty i.e. a sum not exceeding the market price of the vehicle or the conveyance, in lieu of confiscation of vehicle. 11. Section 64 suggests that Excise Officer, in-charge of District may accept penalty i.e. a sum not exceeding the market price of the vehicle or the conveyance, in lieu of confiscation of vehicle. 11. This Court after carefully examining the provisions contained in Sections 60 to 64 of the Himachal Pradesh Excise Act, has no hesitation to conclude that provisions contained in aforesaid sections relate to confiscation of vehicle or conveyance as well as liquor seized at the time of registration of case. But authority concerned can only order for confiscation of vehicle as well as liquor as referred above, after final adjudication of the case by the concerned Judicial Magistrate, who, on the basis of material adduced on record by the prosecution, be it police or excise officer, may either acquit the accused or may hold him guilty of having committed offences punishable under this Act. Provisions contained in the aforesaid sections 61 to 64, would only come to operation once learned Magistrate comes to conclusion that offence punishable under this Act has been committed and property seized at the time of commission of offence is required to be confiscated in terms of Section 60. 12. True it is, in terms of section 60, learned Judicial Magistrate has no power to order for confiscation of liquor, vehicle or conveyance and in that regard, only Excise Officer in charge of District is authorized to either confiscate the vehicle or to release the same in terms of Section 64 in lieu of penalty of sum not exceeding the market price of the vehicle or conveyance but provisions as contained in 60 to 64 of the Act shall only come to operation after final adjudication of the dispute by the Judicial Magistrate, before whom challan is presented either by police or by Excise Officer in terms of Section 9 of the Act. As far as power to give interim custody by Judicial Magistrate, during the pendency of trial is concerned, there is no specific bar as such, contained in the Act and Judicial Magistrate is competent to release the vehicle in favour of registered owner on spurdari subject to certain conditions as envisaged under Section 451 of the Cr.PC. 13. As far as power to give interim custody by Judicial Magistrate, during the pendency of trial is concerned, there is no specific bar as such, contained in the Act and Judicial Magistrate is competent to release the vehicle in favour of registered owner on spurdari subject to certain conditions as envisaged under Section 451 of the Cr.PC. 13. In the instant case, perusal of impugned order clearly suggests that learned court below misdirected itself by referring to provisions contained in Sections 61 to 64 of the Act because admittedly, those are/were not relevant at the time of consideration of the application for interim release of vehicle preferred by the registered owner of the vehicle and in no manner these provisions could be construed as a bar for Judicial Magistrate to order for interim custody of the vehicle during the pendency of the trial. Rather at the cost of repetition, it may be stated that provisions contained in the aforesaid sections shall only come into operation after final adjudication of the matter. After adjudication of the case, by Judicial Magistrate, power to confiscate, if any, can be exercised by the Excise Officer in-charge not by the Judicial Magistrate. In the instant case, where admittedly FIR was registered by the police against the registered owner under Section 39 of the Act and pursuant to same, challan, if any, may be submitted by the police in the competent court of law, meaning thereby, it was only police, who is/was in custody of articles/vehicle seized at the time of registration of case. Since police is required to present challan after the completion of investigation before the Judicial Magistrate, proper course for registered owner for interim custody of vehicle in question is to only file application before the Judicial Magistrate before whom the challan is presented or to be presented. It is not the case of the respondent-state that in the instant case, case was registered by the Excise Officer and as such, order if any, for interim custody of the vehicle was to be passed only by the excise officer, rather, case is /was registered by the police, which was also authorized under Section 9 of the Act to investigate the case. 14. 14. After careful examination of the aforesaid provisions of law there cannot be any quarrel with regard to the limited power of Judicial Magistrate to order for confiscation of articles including vehicle after completion of trial, but definitely, he/she is not precluded from ordering interim custody of vehicle in exercise of power conferred upon him/her under Section 451 of Cr.PC, on the application of registered owner. Further perusal of aforesaid provisions of law leaves no doubt in the mind of the Court that confiscation in terms of Sections 61 to 64 though can be ordered by the Excise Officer in-charge of the area but same can only be ordered after completion of trial and as such, there cannot be any bar for Judicial Magistrate to order for interim custody of vehicle to the registered owner during the pendency of the trial. Provisions contained in Section 4 (i) of the Cr.PC, clearly suggest that all offences under the Indian Penal Code shall be investigated, inquired into, tried and otherwise dealt with according to the provisions contained in the Cr.PC. Similarly Section 4 (ii) suggests that all offences under any other law are required to be investigated, inquired into, tried and otherwise dealt with according to the same provisions but subject to any enactment for the time being in force regulating the manner or place of investigation, inquiring into, trying or otherwise dealing with such offences. It is apt to reproduce Section 4 of the Cr.PC, herein below:- “(i). All offences under the Indian Penal Code (45 of 1860) shall be investigated, inquired into, tried, and otherwise dealt with according to the provisions hereinafter contained. (ii). All offences under any other law shall be investigated, inquired into, tried, and otherwise dealt with according to the same provisions, but subject to any enactment for the lime being in force regulating the manner or place of investigating, inquiring into, trying or otherwise dealing with such offences.” Careful perusal of aforesaid provisions as contained in Section 4 of the Cr.PC certainly suggests that jurisdiction of the Court to deal with the matter and pass order in accordance with the Cr.PC, should be presumed and to hold contrary, there must be specific bar. In this regard, reliance is placed upon judgment titled Bhim Sen v. State of U.P., AIR 1955 SC 435 (Vol.42, C.N. 71), wherein the Hon’ble Apex Court has held as under:- “5.Now, in these circumstances, it has to be considered whether the trial of this case by the ordinary criminal Court is barred. The bar of the jurisdiction of the ordinary criminal Court is brought about by Section 55 of the Act. But it requires to be noticed that the bar which is brought about by the section, is a bar which relates to the case as a whole. Because, in, terms, what it says is "no court shall take cognizance of any case which is cognizable under the Act by a Panchayati Adalat". Under Section 2(a) of the Act a "case" is defined as meaning "criminal proceeding in respect of an offence triable by a Panchayati Adalat" and "Panchayati Adalat" is defined as "including a bench thereof". It is clear, therefore, that this bar has reference to the entire proceeding, i.e., as involving all the accused together. Such a bar in. respect of the entire case can be operative only where there is a valid machinery for the trial thereof. In the present case in which at 'least one of the accused (though not this very. appellant) is a person coming from an area outside the local extent of the Act, any -bench of the Adalat that can be validly formed there-. under cannot try the three accused together and hence can have no Jurisdiction over the whole case. The jurisdiction of the regular criminal court in respect of such a case cannot be taken away by the operation of Section 55 of the Act. It is to be remembered that the jurisdiction of the criminal courts under section 5 of the Code of Criminal Procedure is comprehensive. That section enjoins, that all offences under the Indian Penal Code shall be investigated, enquired into, tried and otherwise dealt with "according 'to the provisions hereinafter contained". To the extent that no valid machinery is set up under the U.P. Panchayat Raj' Act for the trial of any Particular case, the jurisdiction of the ordinary criminal court under Section 5 Code of Criminal Procedure cannot be held to have been excluded. To the extent that no valid machinery is set up under the U.P. Panchayat Raj' Act for the trial of any Particular case, the jurisdiction of the ordinary criminal court under Section 5 Code of Criminal Procedure cannot be held to have been excluded. Exclusion of jurisdiction of a court of general jurisdiction, can be brought about by the setting no of a court of limited jurisdiction, in respect of the limited field, only if the vesting and the exercise of that limited jurisdiction is clear and operative. Where, as in this case, there is no adequate machinery for the exercise of this jurisdiction in a specific case, we -cannot hold that the exercise of jurisdiction in respect of such a case by the Court of general jurisdiction is illegal.” 15. In view of the discussion made herein above, as well as specific provisions contained in the HP Excise Act, wherein, admittedly, no bar as such, has been created/provided for interim release of the vehicle by the Judicial Magistrate before whom the application for release of vehicle is filed, this Court has no hesitation to conclude that learned trial Court, while rejecting the application for release of vehicle having been preferred on behalf of the registered owner, wrongly placed reliance upon Sections 61 to 64 of the HP Excise Act, which are definitely not attracted/ applicable in the present case at this stage. Provisions as contained in Sections 61 to 64 shall only come into operation after final adjudication of the case. Let the matter be viewed from another angle, if competent Court of law i.e. Judicial Magistrate, after conclusion of trial comes to conclusion that no case is made out pursuant to case registered by the Investigating Agency under the Excise Act, natural corollary of the same would be the release of seized articles including vehicle in favour of the owner/proprietor. Under Section 452 Cr.PC, after conclusion of inquiry or trial, Court is empowered to pass order or as it thinks fit for disposal, by destruction, confiscation or delivery to any person claiming it to be entitled to possession thereof. It is apt to reproduce Section 452 (1) of the Cr.PC, herein below:- “1. Under Section 452 Cr.PC, after conclusion of inquiry or trial, Court is empowered to pass order or as it thinks fit for disposal, by destruction, confiscation or delivery to any person claiming it to be entitled to possession thereof. It is apt to reproduce Section 452 (1) of the Cr.PC, herein below:- “1. When an inquiry or trial in any Criminal Court is concluded, the Court may make such order as it thinks fit for the disposal, by destruction, confiscation or delivery to any person claiming to be entitle to possession thereof or otherwise, of any property or document produced before it or in its custody, or regarding which any offence appears to have been committed, or which has been used for the commission of any offence.” Certainly, in cases as prescribed under the HP Excise Act, 2011, order with regard to confiscation, if any, after conclusion of trial can only be passed by the Excise Officer In-charge, as prescribed under Sections 61 to 64 of the HP Excise Act, but admittedly, there is no embargo, as such, for the Judicial magistrate to order for interim custody and disposal of property pending trial in certain cases while exercising power under Section 451 Cr.PC. Section 451 Cr.PC, is being reproduced as follows:- “451. Order for custody and disposal of property pending trial in certain cases- When any property is produced before any Criminal Court during an 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.” Careful perusal of Section 451, reproduced herein above, suggests that criminal Court is empowered to pass order as it thinks fit for such property pending conclusion or inquiry or trial. (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.” Careful perusal of Section 451, reproduced herein above, suggests that criminal Court is empowered to pass order as it thinks fit for such property pending conclusion or inquiry or trial. Aforesaid provision of law empowers the criminal Court to even pass order for sale of the property which is subject to speedy and natural decay. The Hon’ble Apex Court has specifically held in Sunderbhai Ambalal Desai v. State of Gujarat, AIR 2003 SC 638 that power under Section 451 should be exercised expeditiously and judiciously, the relevant paras whereof, are being reproduced herein below:- 6. It is submitted that despite wide powers proper orders are not passed by the Courts. It is also pointed out that in the State of Gujarat there is Gujarat Police Manual for disposal and custody of such articles. As per the Manual also, various circulars are issued for maintenance of proper registers for keeping the muddamal articles in safe custody. 7. In our view, the powers under Section 451 Cr.P.C. should be exercised expeditiously and judiciously. It would serve various purposes, namely:- 1. Owner of the article would not suffer because of its remaining unused or by its misappropriation. 2. Court or the police would not be required to keep the article in safe custody; 3. If the proper panchanama before handing over possession of article is prepared, that can be used in evidence instead of its production before the Court during the trial. If necessary, evidence could also be recorded describing the nature of the properly in detail; and 4. This jurisdiction of the Court to record evidence should be exercised promptly so that there may not be further chance of tampering with the articles. 21. However these powers are to be exercised by the concerned Magistrate. We hope and trust that the concerned Magistrate would take immediate action for seeing that powers under Section 451 Cr.P.C. are properly and promptly exercised and articles are not kept for a long time at the police station, in any case, for not more than fifteen days to one month. We hope and trust that the concerned Magistrate would take immediate action for seeing that powers under Section 451 Cr.P.C. are properly and promptly exercised and articles are not kept for a long time at the police station, in any case, for not more than fifteen days to one month. This object can also be achieved if there is proper supervision by the Registry of the concerned High Court in seeing that the rules framed by the High Court with regard to such articles are implemented properly.” 16. Consequently, for the reasons stated herein above, present petition is allowed and the impugned order is quashed and set-aside. In view of the above, let learned court below decide the application afresh within a period of ten days from the date of receipt of the copy of the judgment taking into consideration the observations/findings returned in the instant judgment. 17. Parties are directed to appear before the learned trial Court on 1.5.2017 so that the needful is done within the stipulated time. Record, if any, of the case be also sent back forthwith. Pending applications, if any, also stand disposed of. Copy dasti.