Full Judgment
N.G. Nandi, J.
1. In this petition under Section 482 Criminal Procedure Code (herein referred to as Code), the petitioner pending inquiry/trial prays for the release of vehicle bearing No.DL-5C 5644, allegedly involved in the transaction of illicit liquor.
2. The learned Metropolitan Magistrate vide his order dated 16.9.97, rejected the application under Section 451 of the Code, of the present petitioner for the release of the car pending trial.
3. The petitioner carried the said order to the court of Sessions by way of criminal revision No. 86/97. Learned Addl. Sessions Judge holding that the order under Section 451 of the Code being interlocutory in nature criminal revision petition under Section 397(1) of the Code would not be maintainable in view of the bar contained in Sub section (2) of section 397 of the Code and refrained from entering into the merits of the contentions advanced by the petitioner.
4. Section 451 of the Code deals with the custody and disposal of property pending trial. It provides that:-
'When any property is produced before any Criminal Court during any inquiry or trial, the Court may make such orders 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 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.'
5. In the instant case, the prayer was the one falling under Section 451 of the Code and the same would be interlocutory in nature inasmuch as the orders as regards proper custody before the court during any inquiry or trial.
6. Sub-section (2) of Section 397 of the code provides that the powers of revision conferred by sub-section (1) shall not be exercised in relation to any interlocutory order passed in any appeal, inquiry, trial or other proceedings.
7. In the case of Anisa Begum v. Masoom Ali & others reported in 30(1996) DLT 107, it is held that:-
'An order under Section 451 of the Code with regard to custody and disposal of the property does not decide anything finally. It is made during the progress of the inquiry or trial for a specific purpose i.e. interim custody of the property produced before the court. It is a different thing that while doing so the court may, inter alia, take into consideration, as to who is the person, prima facie, entitled to its possession but that would not mean that any party is entitled to interim custody of the property as of right. If the court does so, it is only to facilitate proper exercise of judicial discretion and nothing more. It is further held that to sum up, thereforee, I find that the learned Addl. Sessions Judge, did not have jurisdiction to revise the order of the Magistrate in view of specific bar contained in Section 397(2) of the Code.'
In the decision in the case of Madhu Limaye Vs . State of Maharashtra : 1978 CriLJ165 , the principles enunciated in relation to the exercise of the inherent powers of the High Court to quash the interlocutory order are as follows :-
'1. That the power is not to be resorted to if there is a specific provision in the Code for the redress of the grievance of the aggrieved party;
2. That it should be exercised very sparingly to prevent abuse of process of any Court or otherwise to secure the ends of justice;
3. That it should not be exercised as against the express bar of law engrafted in any other provision of the Code.'
8. The above discussion would reveal that there is no illegality much less grave error of law committed by the learned Sessions Judge, so as to call for the exercise of inherent powers under Section 482 of the Code since the powers under Section 482 have to be very sparingly exercised to prevent the abuse of process of any court or otherwise to secure the ends of justice. I do not find this to be a fit case to exercise powers under Section 482 of the Code.
9. In the result, the present petition fails.
Order accordingly.