Courts Must Exercise Power Conferred U/S 451 CrPC Judiciously And Without Unnecessary Delay: Allahabad High Court
The Allahabad High Court has held that the power conferred under Section 451 of CrPC (Order for custody and disposal of property pending trial in certain cases) should be exercised by the criminal courts with a judicious mind and without any unnecessary delay. For context, Section 451 CrPC pertains to the power of the criminal court to order for custody and disposal of...
The Allahabad High Court has held that the power conferred under Section 451 of CrPC (Order for custody and disposal of property pending trial in certain cases) should be exercised by the criminal courts with a judicious mind and without any unnecessary delay.
For context, Section 451 CrPC pertains to the power of the criminal court to order for custody and disposal of property pending trials and the provision states that the 'Court can order as it think fits for the proper custody of the property'.
“So that the litigant may not suffer, merely keeping the article in the custody of the police in the open yard will not fulfil any purpose and ultimately it result the damage of the said property. The owner of the property be allowed to enjoy the fruits of the said property for the remaining period for which the property is being made,” emphasised a bench of Justice Shamim Ahmed.
Similarly, taking into account the mandate of Sectio 457 CrPC, the Court added the procedure as contemplated under this provision be also followed promptly, so that the concerned Magistrate may take a prompt decision for disposal of such properties and be released in favour of the entitled person of the said property.
“…keeping the said property in the custody will not solve any purpose and that gives a mental and financial torture to the owner of the said property which is also against the law and against the principles of natural justice,” the Court noted.
These observations were made by the bench while allowing a criminal writ petition filed by one Omprakash challenging the seizure of his vehicle, which was allegedly involved in transporting a calf for sale in violation of Section 3/5/5kha/8 of the Uttar Pradesh Prevention of Cow Slaughter Act, 1955.
It was the case of the petitioner that he moved a release application before the District Magistrate, Ayodhya which was rejected in March 2023 based on the report submitted by the police and further directed to the police authorities to make the public auction of the confiscated vehicle arbitrarily.
Thereafter, he filed a Criminal Revision petition against the said order before the District and Session Judge, Faizabad, which was dismissed in April 2023. His appeal against the DM's order before the District Commissioner Mandal Ayodhya was also rejected in December 2023.
Challenging all the abovementioned orders, the petitioner moved the HC on the ground that the impugned order had been passed on a wrong finding that the confiscated vehicle was used in cow slaughtering or in transportation of cow or its progeny.
It was also contended by his counsel that the vehicle has been standing in an open yard in the police station for more than nine months and with time ultimately it will become junk and after some time it is not useful for any purpose.
The Counsel for the state supported the impugned order of the District Magistrate.
Taking note of the facts of the case as well as the rulings of the Supreme Court in the case of Sunderbhai Ambalal Desai vs State Of Gujarat 2002 and of the Allahabad High Court in the cases of Jai Prakash Vs. State of UP, 1992 and Kamaljeet Singh Vs. State of UP 1986, the Court noted that mere pendency of confiscation proceedings before the Collector is no bar to release the vehicle.
The Court further stressed that the power under Section 451 of CrPC must be used without any delay and in the same manner, the procedure as contemplated under Section 457 of CrPC should also be followed promptly by the Courts concerned.
Further, keeping in view the fact that undisputedly the petitioner is the registered owner of the seized vehicle and the ownership of the vehicle is not in dispute neither the State nor any other person has claimed their ownership over the vehicle, the Court concluded that no useful purpose will be served in keeping the vehicle stationed at the police station in the open yard for a long period allowing it to be damaged with time.
Consequently, the impugned orders were set aside and the petition was allowed.
The Court also directed the District Magistrate, Ayodhya to release the vehicle in question forthwith in favour of the petitioner on the petitioner giving a bank guarantee of Rs. 50,000/- before the Chief Judicial Magistrate, Ayodhya.
Case title - Omprakash vs. State Of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy. Home, Lko. And Another 2024 LiveLaw (AB) 152
Case Citation: 2024 LiveLaw (AB) 152