SHAMIM AHMAD Vs. STATE OF U P

JUDGEMENT

(1.) MAITHLI Sharan, J. The revi sionist has filed this revision petition against the order dated 9-5-1997, passed by the learned Chief Judicial Magistrate, Barabanki in regard to seizure of the vehicle, Commander Jeep No. U. P. 32a/6304.

(2.) BRIEFLY stated the fact of the case is that the revisionist is an owner of the said vehicle, Commander Jeep No. 32a/6304 which was seized by the Assistant Regional Transport Officer, Barabanki on 7-5-1997 under Section 207 of the Motor Vehicles Act. The revisionist applied for the posses sion of the said vehicle purported to be under Section 457 Cr. P. C. before the learned Chief Judicial Magistrate con cerned on 9-5-1997. The learned Chief Judi cial Magistrate on the application filed by the revisionist ordered the S. O. of the con cerned police Station of send a report by 12-5-1997. However, on 9-5-1997 itself on which date the said application was moved, the learned Chief Judicial Magistrate rejected the application observing that he had no jurisdiction to give the possession of the said vehicle to the revisionist. The con tention of the learned counsel for the revisionist is that since the learned Chief Judicial Magistrate had sent for a report of the police by 12-5-1997 he could not have passed an order on 9-5-1997 itself. Be that as it may, the question that crops up to be pondered over in this revision petition is as to whether the provisions of Section 457 Cr. P. C. would be applied in this case. Section 457 Cr. P. C. is reproduced as below: "457. Procedure by police upon seizure of property.- (1) Whenever the seizure of property by any police officer is reported to a Magistrate under the provisions of this Code, and such properly is not produced before a Criminal Court during an inquiry or trial, the Magistrate may make such order as he thinks fit respecting the disposal of such property or the delivery of such property to the person entitled to the possession thereof, or if such person cannot be ascertained, respecting the custody and production of such property. (2) If ihe person so entitled is known, the Magistrate may order the property to be delivered to him on such conditions (if any) as the Magistrate thinks fit and if such person is un known, the Magistrate may detain it and shall, in such case, issue a proclamation specifying the ar ticles of which such property consists, and requir ing any person who may have a claim thereto, to appear before him and establish his claim within six months from the date of such proclamation. "