AMIT TRADERS Vs. STATE OF M.P.

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THE unsuccessful petitioner of Criminal Revision No. 260/2001, disposed of the IInd Addl. Sessions Judge, Bhopal, on 25.6.2001, seeks interim custody of the seized property in exercise of inherent powers, whose application U/s. 451 of the Cr. P.C. (hereinafter referred to as the Code), stood partly rejected by Shri Sunil Kumar Jain, J.M.F.C Bhopal, by order dated 15.6.2001, passed in Regular Trial No. 958/2001. The petitioner is facing aforesaid criminal case for offences punishable U/s. 420,485,486,487,488,272,273 of the I.P.C. and Sections 78 and 79 of Trade & Mercantile Act, on these facts that on a raid been launched by the Police Kotwali, Bhopal, at the shop of petitioner on 31.1.2001, it was found that petitioner is selling edible oils after pasting the labels and stickers of various companies, of which he was not the authorised dealer or agent. The labels and stickers of various brands of different companies were seized from the possession of the petitioner in addition of Mustard Oil, Soybean Oil, Coconut Oil, Groundnut Oil and Dalda. The samples were taken from the aforesaid edible oils and the same were sent for analysis. As per reports received in respect of these samples, the oils in the samples of Mustard Oil and Dalda were found adulterated . In respect of Coconut and Soyabean Oil, the expert could not record definite opinion whether the same confirm the prescribed standard or not. The oil in the sample of Groundnut was found confirming to the prescribed standard.

(2.) BY order dated 15th June, 2001, the learned J.M.F.C. partly allowed the petitioner's application moved U/s 451 of the Cr. P.C. and ordered the release on interim custody, the groundnut oil, measurements, scales stove, documents and articles listed since S.No. 64 to 82 in seizure momo. The petitioner's prayer in respect of other articles was turned down on the ground that properties listed since S.No. 54 to 63 are not seized from the possession of the petitioner and the stickers, wrappers and containers of various companies, are being used by the petitioner for packing the sub -standard oils of different companies. The oils and Dalda, which were either found adulterated or not confirming to the prescribed standard, are also not given on Supurdgi. Agreeing with the reasons recorded by the learned Magistrate, for disallowing the interim custody of rest of the seized articles, the learned Revisional Court did not find any illegality or impropriety been committed and hence, rejected the petitioner's revision wherein, order dated 15.6.2001 passed by J.M.F.C. on petitioners application filed U/s. 451 of the Cr. P.C. was under challenge. It is submitted on behalf of the petitioner that the samples of Mustard Oil, Dalda, Coconut and Soybean Oils are neither noted to be adulterated nor injurious to health, on analysis. It also submitted on behalf of the petitioner that the sample of refined Soyabean oil is reported to be confirming to the prescribed standard by Food & Drugs Administration. Bhopal, therefore, the order passed by the learned J.M.F.C. so also Revisional Court are liable to be quashed and the remaining articles may also be ordered to be delivered to the petitioner, on Supurdgi.

(3.) IT is found explained in S.Raman Vs. State of Karnataka, reported in, 1979 Cri. L.J. (NOC) 185 :, (1978) 2 Kant. LJ 249, that in respect of order of interim custody of seized property, the remedy in Section 482 of the Code is not available. Referring to decisions of various High Courts, it is explained by V.R. Manohar and W.B. Chitaley in Vth Edition of their commentary on Code of Criminal Procedure under Section 451 at page 324. that the order passed U/ s. 451 is normally interlocutory in nature and interference under inherent powers is permissible in exceptional cases. Then, Mustard Oil and Dalda of which the sample are found to be adulterated, so also the Coconut Oil and Soyabean Oil, in respect of which a definite opinion could not be expressed by the Public Analyst, may be ordered to be destroyed at the conclusion of the trial. Similarly, the stickers, labels, wrappers and containers of various companies of which the petitioner is not the authorized dealer or agent, may be used as evidence and may also be ordered to be destroyed at the conclusion of the trial. Then the property which is not seized from the possession of the petitioner, cannot be ordered to be given to him on interim custody. Therefore, in the absence of any patent illegality or miscarriage of justice, I do not find any merit in this petition, which is accordingly disallowed and rejected at the stage of motion.