PUKHRAJ Vs. STATE OF RAJASTHAN

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THIS petition under sec. 482 Cr. P. C. has been filed against an interlocutory order passed by the learned Munsif & Judicial Magistrate, Abu Road dated 11. 11. 1982 whereby certain orders were given about the delivary of the truck but regarding four tyres and one tube, which were produced before the Court, it was ordered that they be sold and their sale proceeds be deposited in the Bank and that amount will not be withdrawn by any party till the final decision of the Court.

(2.) FROM the investigation, it was revealed that these tyres and one tube have been purchased by sale proceeds of the misappropriated property. Mr. M. K. Garg, the learned counsel appearing for the petitioner has drawn my attention to a decision of this Court in Jugal Kishore V. Sahulal (1), wherein it has been held that while passing final order under ss. 452 and 457, the Court is required to ascertain whether the person to whom the property is to he delivered is entitled to the possession thereof or not but there is no such requirement in respect of an interim order passed under s. 451. This shows that while passing an interim order for the custody of the property under s. 451 IPC, the Court is not required to hold an enquiry as to whether person to whom the property is to be delivered is entitled to the possession thereof or not. This authority only lays down that the Court can pass appropriate order under s. 451 IPC without holding an enquiry about the disposition of the property pending conclusion of the enquiry or trial. Thus, this authority does not support the case of the petitioner,