BHARAT MAHEY Vs. STATE OF U P

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THIS application in revision has been filed on behalf of M/s. Hindustan Lever Ltd. , Bombay against an order of the Judicial Magistrate, 1st Class, Meerut, dated 5th July, 1974, passed in Crime No. 390 of 1974, pending against the accused for offences under Sections 3/7 Essential Commodities Act read with Rule 114 of the Defence of India Rules. In connection with this crime 23,570 tins of Dalda of 2 kg. each and 4 tins of Dalda of 4 kg. each were seized on 15-6-1974 by the Police from the godown of M/s. Bishambhar Dass Devi Dayal, situate near Madhuri Cinema, on Meerut-Delhi road. The Station Officer, Police Station Railway Road submitted a report on 17th June, 1974, with respegt to the seizure for obtaining orders for disposal of the ceased property. On 18th June, 1974, an. application was moved under Section 451/ 459, Criminal Procedure Code on behalf of the Hindustan Lever Ltd. , represented by Sri Bharat Mahe,. Branch Manager, praying that the goods be released in favour of the Company, to whom they belonged. It was alleged in this connection that goods were stored in the godown of M/s. Bishambhar Dayal Devi Dayal, who were only the clearing and forwarding agents of the Company and had no right, title or interest in the property. It was also prayed in this connection that the soaps, toilets etc. , which had also been seized by the Police along with the Dalda tins aforesaid may also be released in favour of the Company. The Judicial Magistrate Meerut rejected the claim of the company for the release of the Dalda tins in its favour. As for the release of soaps, toilets etc, the Judicial Magistrate was of the opinion that as per report of the Station Officer dated 27th June, 1974, no such articles were seized by the Police. With regard to the distribution of the seized tins of Dalda the Judicial Magistrate has in his order, chalked out a scheme for the dispdsal of the dalda tins to various authorities detailed therein at the old rates. Dissatisfied with the above order of the Judicial Magistrate Meerut dated 5th July, IB74, Criminal Revision No. 1021 of 1974 has been filed in this Court.

(2.) I have heard learned Counsel for the parties at considerable length and have also perused the impugned order. As mentioned above, the application dated 18th June, 1974 was moved on behalf of the company under Section 451/458, Criminal Procedure Code, The Court below has rightly held that Section 451, Criminal Procedure Code is inapplicable to the facts of the present case, inasmuch as it contemplates order for the custody and disposal of the property pending trial. He has further correctly held that Section 458, Criminal Procedure Code also does not apply because it lays down the procedure with regard to the disposal of the property when no claimant appears within six months. He has, however, treated the application as one under Section 457, Criminal Procedure Code and has passed the impugned order under that section. There is no dispute that the case is still in the investigation stage. It is also not disputed that the revision in High Court has been filed under Sections 397/401 of the Code of Criminal Procedure 1973 and therefore the provisions of the new Act would be applicable.

(3.) A preliminary objection has been taken on behalf of the State that the impugned order had been passed under Section 457, Cr. P. C. and that being an interlocutary order it cannot be revised in view of Section 397 (2) of the new Code, He has submitted that according to the terms of the order the price of the tins of Dalda will remain in custody of the court and that the final order with regard to the disposal of the proceeds would be passed after the conclusion of the trial. I have been referred to the report of the Station Officer dated 17th June 1974 filed under Section 3/7 of the Essential Commodities Act read with Rule 114 of the Defence of India Rules, which was submitted to the Judicial Magistrate Meerut for orders. It was mentioned in this application that Dalda tins were likely to be spoiled on account of the hot season and that some of these tins of ghee were leaking, as such immediate orders were solicited for disposal of those tins. Counsel for the State has submitted that under Section 6-A of the Essential Commodities Act it was obligatory upon the State to apply to the authority concerned for the speedy disposal of property which has been seized under the provisions of the Act. He has further submitted that the impugned order passed by the Judicial Magistrate is in the nature of interim order and the proceeds of sale would remain in deposit in court till the final conclusion of the trial. As such he contends that the order in question* which has been challenged in this Court is an interlocutory order and is not revi-sable under the new Code of Criminal Procedure.