# Ashok Gupta Revisionist v. State of U.P. & Anr

- **Citation:** (2021) 7 ILRA 232
- **Court:** High Court of Judicature at Allahabad
- **Decided:** 2021-07-15
- **Case number:** Criminal Revision No. 1481 of 2021
- **Bench:** Dr. Yogendra Kumar Srivastava
- **Source:** https://unisonlegal.in/judgment/allahabad-high-court/ashok-gupta-revisionist-v-state-of-u-p-anr-47080
- **Pages:** 4

## Headnote

(A) Criminal Law - Code of Criminal
Procedure, 1973 - Section 451 - Order for
custody and disposal of property pending
trial in certain case , Section 457 -
procedure of police upon seizure of
property , Public Gambling Act, 1867 -
Section 3⁄4 - power of the court under
Section 451 of the Code for passing of an
order for custody and disposal of property
can be invoked, only during the course of
an inquiry or at the stage of trial -
proceedings relating to investigation are
not within the realm of either inquiry or
trial - powers of the court under Section
451 cannot be invoked at the stage of
investigation.(Para - 18)

Application filed by the applicant-revisionist
under Section 451 of the Code before Chief
Metropolitan Magistrate for release of the
amount which had been seized by the police -
dismissed - hence present revision.

HELD:- In the facts of the present case, the
case was pending at the stage of the
investigation and the stage of trial had not yet
reached . The court below has thus rightly held
that since investigation was pending no order
for custody or disposal of property could be
passed in exercise of powers under Section 451
of the Code. (Para - 16,19)

Criminal Revision dismissed. (E-6)

## Text

232 INDIAN LAW REPORTS ALLAHABAD SERIES

(ii) The mother will further
furnish an undertaking to the effect that she
will encourage the juvenile to pursue his
studies.

(iii) The revisionist Vipin Mali
and his mother Smt. Pushpa Devi will
report to the District Probation Officer on
the first Monday of every month with effect
from the first Monday of the month next
after release from custody, and if during
any calendar month, the first Monday falls
on a holiday then on the following working
day.

(iv)
The
District
Probation
Officer will keep strict vigil on the
activities of the revisionist and regularly
draw up his social investigation report that
would be submitted to the Juvenile Justice
Board, Sultanpur on such periodical basis
as the Juvenile Justice Board determines.

(v)
The party
shall
file
a
computer generated copy of such order
downloaded from the official website of
High Court Allahabad.

(vi) The computer generated copy
of such order shall be self attested by the
counsel of the party concerned.

(vii)
The
concerned
Court/Authority/Official shall verify the
authenticity of the computerized copy of
the order from the official website of High
Court
Allahabad
and
shall
make
a
declaration of such verification in writing.
----------
(2021)07ILR A232
REVISIONAL JURISDICTION
CRIMINAL SIDE
DATED: ALLAHABAD 15.07.2021

BEFORE

THE HON'BLE DR. YOGENDRA KUMAR
SRIVASTAVA, J.

Criminal Revision No. 1481 of 2021

Ashok Gupta ...Revisionist
Versus
State of U.P. & Anr. ...Opposite Parties

Counsel for the Revisionist:
Sri Chandrajeet, Sri Babu Lal Ram

Counsel for the Opposite Parties:
A.G.A.

(A) Criminal Law - Code of Criminal
Procedure, 1973 - Section 451 - Order for
custody and disposal of property pending
trial in certain case , Section 457 -
procedure of police upon seizure of
property , Public Gambling Act, 1867 -
Section 3⁄4 - power of the court under
Section 451 of the Code for passing of an
order for custody and disposal of property
can be invoked, only during the course of
an inquiry or at the stage of trial -
proceedings relating to investigation are
not within the realm of either inquiry or
trial - powers of the court under Section
451 cannot be invoked at the stage of
investigation.(Para - 18)

Application filed by the applicant-revisionist
under Section 451 of the Code before Chief
Metropolitan Magistrate for release of the
amount which had been seized by the police -
dismissed - hence present revision.

HELD:- In the facts of the present case, the
case was pending at the stage of the
investigation and the stage of trial had not yet
reached . The court below has thus rightly held
that since investigation was pending no order
for custody or disposal of property could be
passed in exercise of powers under Section 451
of the Code. (Para - 16,19)

Criminal Revision dismissed. (E-6)

(Delivered by Hon'ble Dr. Yogendra
Kumar Srivastava, J.)

1. Heard Sri Babu Lal Ram holding
brief of Sri Chandrajeet, learned counsel
for the revisionist and Ms. Sushma Soni,
7 All. Ashok Gupta Vs. State of U.P. & Anr.
233
learned Additional Government Advocate
for the State-opposite party.

2. The present revision has been
preferred against the order dated 30.01.2021
passed by the Chief Metropolitan Magistrate,
Kanpur Nagar in Criminal Misc. Application
No.516 of 2021 (State vs. Ashok Gupta and
others) arising out of Case Crime No.346 of
2020, under Section 3/4 of Public Gambling
Act, 1867, Police Station Fazalganj, District
Kanpur Nagar, pending before the Chief
Metropolitan Magistrate, Kanpur Nagar
whereby he has dismissed the application
filed by the revisionist under Section 451 of
the Code of Criminal Procedure, 19731 with
regard to release of the amount in favour of
the revisionist during the pendency of the
case.

3. Records of the case indicate that the
application dated 20.01.2021 was filed by the
applicant-revisionist under Section 451 of the
Code for release of the amount which had
been seized by the police. The Chief
Metropolitan Magistrate, Kanpur Nagar
while considering the application has looked
into the material on record and has held that
the recovery memo prima facie indicates that
the amount recovered from the possession of
the applicant had been used for the purpose
of gambling and since the investigation was
pending it was not appropriate to issue any
direction for release of the amount.

4. Learned counsel for the revisionist
has sought to assail the aforesaid order by
referring to the facts of the case and the
defence of the revisionist.

5. Learned AGA submits that the
contention which is sought to be raised by
the revisionist would relate to disputed
questions of fact and appreciation of
evidence, which could not be seen at this
stage. It is further pointed out that an order
for custody and disposal of property under
Section 451 of the Code can be sought only
during the pendency of the trial or inquiry
and not at the stage of investigation.

6. The scheme under Sections 451 to
459, which fall under Chapter XXXIV of
the Code, contain elaborate provisions
regarding disposal of property; (a) in
respect of which an offence appears to have
been committed, or (b) which appears to
have been used for the commission of an
offence, or (c) which has been produced
before the Court, or (d) which is in the
custody of the Court.

7. Detailed provisions have been
made in regard to the property seized by
the
police
during
the
course
of
investigation
including
provisions
for
passing of interim orders for the custody
and disposal of such property pending
inquiry or trial and of final orders at the
conclusion of inquiry or trial.

8. Section 451 empowers the Court to
pass appropriate orders for the custody of
property produced during any inquiry or
trial and in the event of speedy decay the
Court may direct the sale or otherwise
disposal of property. The application under
Section 451 can be made during the
pendency of the inquiry or trial on
production of property in the Court. Section
452 confers power on the Court to direct
disposal of the property at the conclusion of
trial or inquiry. Section 451 can therefore,
be invoked during pendency of inquiry or
trial whereas Section 452 would be
applicable after the termination of the
234 INDIAN LAW REPORTS ALLAHABAD SERIES
inquiry or trial and under both the
provisions the powers would be exercisable
when the property is in the custody of the
Court or produced before the Court. The
provisions under Sections 451 or 452
would not be applicable where the case is
still at the stage of investigation.

9. Section 457 provides that whenever
the seizure of property by any police officer
is reported to a Magistrate under the
provisions of the Code, and such property
is not produced before a Criminal Court
during any inquiry or trial, the Magistrate is
empowered to give suitable directions
regarding disposal or delivery of the
property.

10. Section 451 of the Code, which
relates in particular to the controversy at
hand, reads as follows:

"451. Order for custody and
disposal of property pending trial in
certain cases. When any property is
produced before any Criminal Court during
any inquiry or trial, the Court may make
such order as it thinks fit for the proper
custody of such property pending the
conclusion of the inquiry or trial, and, if the
property is subject to speedy and natural
decay, or if it is otherwise expedient so to
do, the Court may, after recording such
evidence as it thinks necessary, order it to
be sold or otherwise disposed of.

Explanation.- For the purposes of
this section," property" includes-

(a) property of any kind or
document which is produced before the
Court or which is in its custody,

(b) any property regarding which
an offence appears to have been committed
or which appears to have been used for the
commission of any offence."

11.

The
words
"inquiry"
and
"investigation" have been defined under
Section 2(g) and 2(h) of the Code,
respectively, and the same are as follows:

"(g)
"inquiry"
means
every
inquiry, other than a trial, conducted under
this Code by a Magistrate or Court;

(h) "investigation" includes all
the proceedings under this Code for the
collection of evidence conducted by a
police officer or by any person (other than
a Magistrate) who is authorized by a
Magistrate in this behalf;"

12. The word "trial" though not
defined under the Code is commonly
understood to refer to a judicial proceeding
which commences after framing of charge
and concludes with either conviction or
acquittal.

13. In terms of the provisions
contained under Section 451 of the Code
where any property is produced before
any criminal court during an inquiry or
trial, the court may make such order as it
thinks fit for the proper custody of such
property pending conclusion of the trial,
and, if the property is subject to speedy
and natural decay, or if it is otherwise
expedient so to do, the court may, after
recording such evidence as it thinks
necessary, order it to be sold or otherwise
disposed of.

14. As per clause (a) of the
Explanation to Section 451, any kind of
property which is either produced before
the court or is in custody of the court would
be within the purview of the section.
Section 451 would have no application
unless the property is produced before the
court during the inquiry or trial.
7 All. Meghraj Sharma Vs. State of U.P. & Anr.
235

15. The section empowers the court to
make orders for interim custody for disposal
of the property produced before it during an
inquiry or trial. This order may be passed in
respect of both (i) property produced before
the court during the inquiry or trial, and (ii)
property regarding which the offence appears
to have been committed or which appears to
have been used for commission of any
offence.

16. In the facts of the present case, the
case was pending at the stage of the
investigation and the stage of trial had not yet
reached.

17. The case is registered under the
provisions of Public Gambling Act, 1867,
and in terms of the scheme of the Act, the
Magistrate or the Officer authorised is
empowered to search, seize and take
possession all instruments of gaming, and of
moneys and security of money and articles of
value, reasonably suspected to have been
used or intended to have been used for the
purpose of gaming which are found therein.

18. The power of the court under
Section 451 of the Code for passing of an
order for custody and disposal of property
can be invoked, only during the course of an
inquiry or at the stage of trial. The
proceedings relating to investigation are not
within the realm of either inquiry or trial and
therefore the powers of the court under
Section 451 cannot be invoked at the stage of
investigation.

19. The court below has thus rightly
held that since investigation was pending no
order for custody or disposal of property
could be passed in exercise of powers under
Section 451 of the Code.

20. Counsel for the revisionist has
not been able to dispute the aforesaid factual
and legal position. He, however, submits that
the revisionist may have liberty of invoking
the jurisdiction of the court for release of
property at the appropriate stage during the
course of the trial.

21. No material error or illegality
having been pointed out in the order passed
by the court below, the revision stands
dismissed.

22. However, this would not preclude
the revisionist from invoking the jurisdiction
of the court for an order for custody or
disposal of the property at the appropriate
stage.
----------
(2021)07ILR A235
REVISIONAL JURISDICTION
CRIMINAL SIDE
DATED: ALLAHABAD 14.07.2021

BEFORE

THE HON'BLE PANKAJ BHATIA, J.

Criminal Revision No. 3449 of 2019

Meghraj Sharma ...Revisionist (In Jail)
Versus
State of U.P. & Anr. ...Opposite Parties

Counsel for the Revisionist:
Sri Sikandar B. Kochar

Counsel for the Opposite Parties:
A.G.A., Sri Sharique Ahmed

(A) Criminal Law -Indian Penal Code, 1860
- Sections 302, 201, 364A - The Juvenile
Justice (Care And Protection Of Children)
Act, 2000 - Section 7A - Claim of juvenility
- Procedure to be followed when claim of
juvenility is raised before any court - The