Sushil Patel State of U.P v. Revisionist(s) .....Opposite Party(s) Counsel for Revisionist(s) Counsel for Opposite Party(s) : Amrita Singh, Pradeep

1.Heard learned counsel for the revisionist and learned AGA for the State.

2. This revision has been filed by the revisionist against the order dated

2.3.2024 passed by Additional Sessions Judge / Fast Track Court (New), Chitrakoot by which the application moved by the revisionist for releasing the vehicle, make Scorpio, bearing registration No. CG04NM 5124, engine no. XMM4H19456, chassis no. MA1TA2XM2M2H27368, has been dismissed.

3. Learned counsel for the revisionist submits that the car, make Scorpio is registered in the name of revisionist. He also submits that the trial Court without going into the merits of the case and the fact that the value of the vehicle is depreciating every day, as the same is kept standing at the police station. He has relied upon the judgement rendered by the Hon'ble Apex Court in the case of Sunderbhai Ambalal Desai Versus State of Gujarat reported in AIR 2003 (SC) 638. Relevant paragraphs for the purpose of the controversy are reproduced herein below:- its remaining unused or by "6. 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 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 property 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. 7. The question of proper custody of the seized article is raised in number of matters. In Smt. Basawa Kom Dyanmangouda Patil v. State of Mysore and another, 2 CRLR No. 1833 of 2024 [1977] 4 SCC 358, this Court dealt with a case where the seized articles were not available for being returned to the complainant. In that case, the recovered ornaments were kept in a trunk in the police station and later it was found missing, the question was with regard to payment of those articles. In that context, the Court observed as under:- "4. 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 inquiry 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 which 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." The Court further observed that 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. To avoid such a situation, in our view, powers under Section 451 Cr.P.C. should be exercised promptly and at the earliest Valuable Articles and Currency Notes. In our view, whatever be the situation, it is of no use to keep such-seized vehicles at the police stations for a long period. It is for the Magistrate to pass appropriate orders immediately by taking appropriate bond and guarantee as well as security for return of the said vehicles, if required at any point of time. This can be done pending hearing of applications for return of such vehicles."

3. In view of the law laid down by the Apex Court in Sunderbhai Ambalal Desai (supra), the order dated 2.3.2024 passed by Additional Sessions Judge / Fast Track Court (New), Chitrakoot is set aside and the matter is remitted back to the concerned Court with the direction to consider and decide the release application of the revisionist afresh in view of the law laid down and guidelines issued by the Hon'ble Apex Court in Sunderbhai Ambalal Desai (supra).

4. The revision is allowed. (Harvir Singh,J.) October 7, 2025 HR 3 CRLR No. 1833 of 2024 HEMANT RANJAN High Court of Judicature at Allahabad

1.Heard learned counsel for the revisionist and learned AGA for the State.

2. This revision has been filed by the revisionist against the order dated

2.3.2024 passed by Additional Sessions Judge / Fast Track Court (New), Chitrakoot by which the application moved by the revisionist for releasing the vehicle, make Scorpio, bearing registration No. CG04NM 5124, engine no. XMM4H19456, chassis no. MA1TA2XM2M2H27368, has been dismissed.

3. Learned counsel for the revisionist submits that the car, make Scorpio is registered in the name of revisionist. He also submits that the trial Court without going into the merits of the case and the fact that the value of the vehicle is depreciating every day, as the same is kept standing at the police station. He has relied upon the judgement rendered by the Hon'ble Apex Court in the case of Sunderbhai Ambalal Desai Versus State of Gujarat reported in AIR 2003 (SC) 638. Relevant paragraphs for the purpose of the controversy are reproduced herein below:- its remaining unused or by "6. 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 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 property 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. 7. The question of proper custody of the seized article is raised in number of matters. In Smt. Basawa Kom Dyanmangouda Patil v. State of Mysore and another, 2 CRLR No. 1833 of 2024 [1977] 4 SCC 358, this Court dealt with a case where the seized articles were not available for being returned to the complainant. In that case, the recovered ornaments were kept in a trunk in the police station and later it was found missing, the question was with regard to payment of those articles. In that context, the Court observed as under:- "4. 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 inquiry 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 which 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." The Court further observed that 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. To avoid such a situation, in our view, powers under Section 451 Cr.P.C. should be exercised promptly and at the earliest Valuable Articles and Currency Notes. In our view, whatever be the situation, it is of no use to keep such-seized vehicles at the police stations for a long period. It is for the Magistrate to pass appropriate orders immediately by taking appropriate bond and guarantee as well as security for return of the said vehicles, if required at any point of time. This can be done pending hearing of applications for return of such vehicles."

3. In view of the law laid down by the Apex Court in Sunderbhai Ambalal Desai (supra), the order dated 2.3.2024 passed by Additional Sessions Judge / Fast Track Court (New), Chitrakoot is set aside and the matter is remitted back to the concerned Court with the direction to consider and decide the release application of the revisionist afresh in view of the law laid down and guidelines issued by the Hon'ble Apex Court in Sunderbhai Ambalal Desai (supra).

4. The revision is allowed. (Harvir Singh,J.) October 7, 2025 HR 3 CRLR No. 1833 of 2024 HEMANT RANJAN High Court of Judicature at Allahabad