(1.) Crime No. 214 of 1985 was registered against the revision petitioner by the Circle Inspector of Police. Angamali alleging that be had committed offences punishable under S.143, 147, 379 and 506 (1) of the Indian Penal Code read with S.149 I.P.C. A bus having Registration No. KRH 2856 was seized from the possession of the petitioner and produced before the II Class Magistrate, Alwaye. Both the petitioner and first respondent sought for interim custody of the bus and filed applications for getting custody of the same. The court after taking evidence gave interim custody of the bus to the first respondent. The operative portion of the order passed by the Magistrate is as follows:
(2.) The Circle Inspector of Police thereafter filed a refer report and the same was accepted by the court on 22-4-1986. The revision petitioner moved M.P. 489 of 1986 for passing final order under S.452 Cr. P.C. That application was rejected holding that the order dated 3-12-1985 was passed under S.457 Cr. PC and that order was not challenged in appeal before the appropriate forum and the order had become final and therefore the impugned order was not open to review. The learned Magistrate was of the view that the vehicle was produced before the court during the stage of investigation of the crime and therefore S.451 of the Cr. P.C. was not applicable and S.457 Cr. PC. alone could be invoked for the disposal of the property. Reliance was placed on the decision of this Court in Joshy v. The State ( 1986 CriLJ 263 ).
(3.) The relevant previsions in the Code of Criminal Procedure are S.451, 452, and 457. The police had submitted only the first information report before the Magistrate. The vehicle was seized by the police while the case was under investigation. In the decision cited above, Single Bench of this court took the view that the property was seized and produced before the Magistrate during the investigation stage and the Magistrate could not have passed any order under S.451 Cr. PC. and whatever order passed by Magistrate for disposal of property could have been passed only under S.457 Cr. PC. This view was taken on the basis that S.451 Cr. PC. could apply only when a property is produced before the court during any inquiry or trial and the inquiry contemplated under S.451 Cr. PC. would not cover a situation when the case was under investigation. The relevant portion of S.451 reads as follows:-