# Virendra Pal Singh Revisionist v. State of U.P

- **Citation:** (2008) 1 ILRA 15
- **Court:** High Court of Judicature at Allahabad
- **Decided:** 2007-11-16
- **Case number:** Criminal Revision No. 1626 of 2001
- **Bench:** Mrs.) Saroj Bala
- **Source:** https://unisonlegal.in/judgment/allahabad-high-court/virendra-pal-singh-revisionist-v-state-of-u-p-41252
- **Pages:** 4

## Headnote

Code of Criminal Procedure-Section-457Power of Magistrate-release of vehicle
loaded with solvent-vehicle standing
open place for the last 6 years-only
reason disclosed for non release-only the
District Collector empowered in the
offence of E.C. Act-held-illegal-direction
issued for release after appropriate bond
with sureties.

Held: Para 11

The Criminal Courts have jurisdiction
under Section 451 of the Code of
Criminal Procedure to pass appropriate
orders with regard to the custody and
disposal of the property pending trial.
The vehicle loaded with so1vent is
standing in the open place at the police
station premises for the last about six
years. The vehicle will become junked
with passage of time.
Case law discussed:
2003 (Crl.) SCC-1943, 1977 (4) SCC-358, 1990
(2) ACC-480

## Text

1 All] Virendra Pal Singh V. State of U.P.
15

25. Therefore, there was no
complete compliance of section 50 of
N.D.P:S. Act and merely on that basis
trial could be vitiated. However, trial
court has committed error in convicting
the appellant for the said charge.

26. In view of above discussions,
there is no force in the submissions made
by learned A.G.A. and the trial court has
committed
error
in
convicting
the
appellant for the above charge and he is
liable to be acquitted by allowing this
appeal.

27. Therefore, the appeal succeeds
and is allowed. The conviction and
sentence of the appellant for the charge
levelled against him is hereby set aside.
The accused appellant is hereby acquitted.
He is on bail. His bail bonds are cancelled
and sureties are discharged. The amount
of fine, if deposited by the appellant, shall
be refunded to him. The recovered
contraband
article,
as
above,
be
confiscated.

28. Record of the court below be
remitted back immediately along with
copy of this judgement. Appeal Allowed.
---------
REVISIONAL JURISDICTION
CRIMINAL SIDE
DATED: ALLAHABAD 16.11.2007

BEFORE
THE HON'BLE (MRS.) SAROJ BALA, J.

Criminal Revision No. 1626 of 2001

Virendra Pal Singh
...Revisionist
Versus
State of U.P.

...Opposite Party

Counsel for the Revisionist:
Sri V. Singh
Counsel for the Opposite Party:
A.G.A.

Code of Criminal Procedure-Section-457Power of Magistrate-release of vehicle
loaded with solvent-vehicle standing
open place for the last 6 years-only
reason disclosed for non release-only the
District Collector empowered in the
offence of E.C. Act-held-illegal-direction
issued for release after appropriate bond
with sureties.

Held: Para 11

The Criminal Courts have jurisdiction
under Section 451 of the Code of
Criminal Procedure to pass appropriate
orders with regard to the custody and
disposal of the property pending trial.
The vehicle loaded with so1vent is
standing in the open place at the police
station premises for the last about six
years. The vehicle will become junked
with passage of time.
Case law discussed:
2003 (Crl.) SCC-1943, 1977 (4) SCC-358, 1990
(2) ACC-480

(Delivered by Hon'ble (Mrs.) Saroi Bala. J.)

1. This Criminal revision. is directed
against the order dated 19.6.2001 passed
by
the
Additional
Chief
Judicial
Magistrate, Court No. 10, Azamgarh in
Case Crime No. 155 of 2001 under
Section 420 I.P.C. and Section 3/7 of the
Essential Commodities Act, Police station
Deo Gaon, District Azamgarh whereby
declining to release the Tanker and
solvent loaded therein.

2. Heard Sri V. Singh, learned
counsel for the revisionist, learned A.G.A.
and have perused the record.

The facts giving rise to this revision
put briefly are these:
16 INDIAN LAW REPORTS ALLAHABAD SERIES [2008
3. On 27.5.2001 the applicant and
co-accused were found selling solvent
adulterated petrol. The applicant was
driver on Tanker No. U.P.65-D/0375 in
which 12000 litres solvent was loaded.
The Tanker carrying solvent was seized.

4. An application for release of the
Tanker was moved under Section 457
Cr.P.C. by the applicant on the grounds
that challan for offences under the
Essential
Commodities
Act
and
prosecution were stopped with immediate
effect
by
Government
order
dated
19.12.2000. It was alleged that the solvent
was loaded from the licensed firm M/s
Abhijeet
Techno-chemicals
Limited,
Kanpur for transportation to licensed firm
Earth Chemical Industries, Diyana Road,
Mahgo, Jamsedpur. The applicant held
valid driving licence, R.C. road permit
and other documents.

5. The Court below rejected the
application for release on the ground that
the jurisdiction to confiscate the Tanker
and goods vested with District Collector
and during confiscation proceedings the
Criminal Court had no jurisdiction to
release vehicle and goods loaded in it.

6. The impugned order has been
assailed
on
the
grounds
that
no
proceeding or notice as contemplated
under Section 6-A of the Essential
Commodities Act was served upon the
applicant. The Court below has not taken
into consideration the aspect of decay of
vehicle which is standing in the open
place.

7. The learned counsel for the
revisionist
placing
reliance
on
the
decision in State of Madhya Pradesh and
others Vs. Rameshwar Rathore- 1990 (2)
ACC 480, argued that the jurisdiction of
the Criminal Courts is not completely
ousted in this matter.

Sections 451 and 457 of the Code of
Criminal Procedure which empower the
Criminal Courts to pass appropriate
orders with regard to custody and disposal
of property read 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, "propeI1y" 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.
*

*

 *
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 property
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 propel1y
or the delivery of such property to the
person entitled to the possession thereof,
1 All] Virendra Pal Singh V. State of U.P.
17
or if such person cannot be ascertained,
respecting the custody and production of
such property.
(2) If the 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 unknown, the Magistrate
may detain it and shall, in such case, issue
a proclamation specifying the articles of
which
such
property
consists,
and
requiring 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."

8. Section 451 empowers the Court
to pass appropriate order with regard to
the custody and disposal of property
pending conclusion of inquiry or trial.
The power under Section 451 Cr. P.C. is
to be exercised judiciously. The Apex.
Court in the case of Basavva Kom
Dyamangouda
Patil
Vs.
State
of
Mysore(1977)4 SCC 358, has observed as
under:

"The object and scheme of the
various provisions of the Code appear to
be that where the property which has been
the subject-matter of an offence is seized
by the police it ought not to be retained in
the custody of the Court or of the police
for any time longer than what is
absolutely necessary. As the seizure of
the property by the police amounts to a
clear entrustment of the property to a
government servant, the idea is that the
property should be restored to the original
owner after the necessity to retain it
ceases. It is manifest that there may be
two stages when the property may be
returned to the owner. In the first place it
may be returned during any inquiry or
trial. This may particularly be necessary
where the property concerned is subject to
speedy or natural decay. There may be
other compelling reasons also which may
justify the disposal of the property to the
owner or otherwise in the interest of
justice. The High Court and the Sessions
Judge proceeded on the footing that one
of the essential requirements of the Code
is that the articles concerned must be
produced before the court or should be in
its custody. The object of the Code seems
to be that any property which is in the
control of the court either directly or
indirectly should be disposed of by the
court and a just and proper order should
be passed by the court regarding its
disposal. In a criminal case, the police
always acts under the direct control of the
court and has to take orders from it at
every stage of an inquiry or trial. In this
broad sense, therefore, the court exercises
an overall control on the actions of the
police officers in every case where it has
taken cognizance."

9. In the case of Sunderbhai
Ambalal Desai Vs. State of Gujrat- 2003
SCC (Cri.) 1943, the Apex Court has
issued direction for exercising powers
under Section 451 Cr.P.C. in relation to
valuable articles, vehicles and currency
notes kept in police custody pending trial.

10. The case of State of Madhya
Pradesh (Supra) related to the release of
the truck seized for alleged contravention
of Essential Commodities Act. The Apex
Court repelling the contention that in view
of the provisions of Section 6-A and
Section 7 of the Essential Commodities
Act,
the
Criminal
Court
had
no
jurisdiction held that the Criminal Court
retained
jurisdiction
and
was
not
completely ousted of the jurisdiction. In
view of the Apex Court's decision the
18 INDIAN LAW REPORTS ALLAHABAD SERIES [2008
Magistrate took an erroneous view that
the jurisdiction of Criminal Court was
completely ousted by the provisions of
Section 6-A of the Essential Commodities
Act.

11. The Criminal Courts have
jurisdiction under Section 451 of the Code
of Criminal Procedure to pass appropriate
orders with regard to the custody and
disposal of the property pending trial. The
vehicle loaded with so1vent is standing in
the open place at the police station
premises for the last about six years. The
vehicle will become junked with passage
of time.

12. In view of these facts and
circumstances, allowing the revision the
impugned order dated 19.6.2001 is set
aside. The seized Tanker and goods
loaded in it shall be released by the
Magistrate concern in favour of the
revisionist on his furnishing appropriate
bonds with sureties and guarantee for the
production of the vehicle if required by
the Court at any point of time. Revision
Allowed.
---------
ORIGINAL JURISDICTION
CIVIL SIDE
DATED: ALLAHABAD 07.12.2007

BEFORE
THE HON'BLE YATINDRA SINGH, J.
THE HON'BLE VINEET SARAN, J.

Habeas Corpus Writ Petition No. 49099 of
2007

Islamuddin

...Petitioner
Versus
State of U.P. and others ...Respondents

Counsel for the Petitioner:
Mrs. Swati Agarwal
Counsel for the Respondents:
Sri. Arvind Tripathi
A.G.A.

Constitution of India Article 226-Habeas
Corpus
Petition-detention
order
challenged-on
the
ground
of
single
incident-may be personal attack but no
disturbance of public life-held-molesting
the daughter of informant-on public
place attack with knife and sworddisplaying
blood
sustained
swordpresence of large number of villagersdue to terror no villager came forward to
provide
help-consequently
died-heldeven single incident may disturb the
public order-subjective satisfaction of
detaining authority duly recorded-cannot
be interfered.

Held: Para 14

In the aforesaid facts, in our opinion,
although the order is based on a single
incident of murder based on personal
enmity, but the same having the effect of
terrorising
the
public
present
and
affecting the even tempo of life of, the
community
in
such
place,
would
constitute an act of disturbance of
"public order".
Case law discussed:
1993 SCC(Crl) 684, 1992(19) ACC 143, AIR
1990 SC 1068, AIR 1990 SC 516, 2007(59)
ACC 385, AIR 1970 SC 1228, 2004(II) UP.Cr.R
667, 2002(44) ACC 757, 1994 Cr.L.J 480, AIR
1988 SC 208.

(Delivered by Hon'ble tice Vineet Saran, J.)

1.

The
main
question
for
determination In this habeas corpus writ
petition which is directed against the
detention order dated 29.3.2007 passed by
District Magistrate, Bijnor is whether a
solitary
incident
can
amount
to
disturbance of public order or not.
FACTS: