JUDGMENT
Pradip Mohanty, J.
1. This is an application under Sections 401 and 397 of the Code of Criminal Procedure (for short, the ‘Code’), challenging the order dated 02.08.2003 passed by the learned Sub-Divisional Judicial Magistrate, Kendrapara, in G.R. Case-No. 210 of 2003 rejecting the application of the petitioner under Section 457 of the Code seeking for interim custody of the vehicle.
2. The petitioner is the registered owner of the vehicle OR-05/J- 9018. The vehicle in question was seized by the police in a case under Sections 323, 379, 506/34 of the Indian Penal Code and Section 56 of the Orissa Forest Act. The petitioner filed a petition before the learned Sub-Divisional Judicial. Magistrate, Kendrapara, under Section 457 of the Code in G.R. Case No.2 10 of 2003 arising out of Kendrapara P.S. Case No.99 of 2003, claiming interim custody by filing several documents in support of her claim showing ownership of (the vehicle in question.
3. Mr. Mishra, learned counsel for the petitioner, submitted that no proceeding has been initiated under the provisions of the Orissa Forest Act, 1956, against the vehicle. He further submitted that the police, after seizure of the vehicle, has kept the same under their custody. Therefore, the findings of the learned S.D.J.M. that only because the prosecution has been launched with the allegation of carrying illegal forest produce, he did not assume jurisdiction to direct release of the vehicle, cannot be sustained in the eye of law.
Mr. Swain, learned Additional Standing Counsel, submitted that no communication has been made to the police station from the Forest Department with regard to pendency of any proceeding against the vehicle in question and the vehicle is now lying in the Kendrapara Police Station. In support of the above contention, an affidavit has been filed by the concerned Investigating Officer.
4. The short question for consideration in this case is, whether jurisdiction under Section 457 of the Code can at all be exercised during the continuance of the investigation and before filing of the final form. Chapter XXIV of the Code deals with the disposal of the property. Sections 451 to 459 occurring in the said chapter of the Code deal with the powers of the Court in the matter of disposal of the property. When a property is seized by any police officer and such seizure is reported to a Magistrate, but not produced before the criminal Court during the enquiry or trial, then the Magistrate gets jurisdiction under Section 457(1) of the Code to pass appropriate order for disposal of such property or for delivery of such property to the person entitled for possession thereof. In other words, if the fact of seizure is brought to the notice of the Magistrate by any party interested or even by a party, who prays for delivery of the property, it would be sufficient to give jurisdiction to the Magistrate to entertain and deal with the application under Section 457 of the Code. Therefore, this Court holds that the Magistrate has jurisdiction under Section 457 of the Code to pass appropriate order regarding the release of the property and give custody of the same. Admittedly, in the instant case, no confiscation proceeding has been initiated by the Forest Department and the vehicle has been seized by the police personnel and the factum of seizure has been reported to the learned S.D.J.M. The impugned order dated 02.08.2003, therefore, cannot be sustained in the eye of law and the same is liable to be set aside.
5. In the result, the revision is allowed. The impugned order dated 02.08.2003 of the S.D.J.M., Kendrapara, is set aside.
This Court directs the learned S.D. J.M. for interim release of the vehicle in question in favour of its registered owner on her furnishing property security to the tune of Rs. 2,00,000/-(rupees two lakhs) and cash security of Rs. 25,000/- (rupees twenty-five thousand) with a further undertaking to produce the vehicle as and when required after verifying the R.C. book.