ORDER
S.M. Rizvi, J.
1. In this petition under Section 561-A of the cr.p.c., filed for quashing the order of the learned Sessions Judge, Srinagar, dated 3-1-1987, the following order was passed by this Court on 18-3-1987:
For the reasons to be given lateron in a detailed judgment, the order impugned dated 3rd of Jan. 1987, passed by the learned Sessions Judge, Srinagar, rejecting the application of the petitioner for release of his Printing Press known as Falah Aam Press, Bemina, is hereby quashed under the inherent powers of the court under Section 561-A of the Cr.P.C. so as to prevent the abuse of the process of the court. The Falah Aam Printing Press which has been sealed by the police is ordered to be released in favour of the person from 'whose possession it has been sealed.
2. The reasons for quashing the impugned order dated 3-1-1987 passed by the learned Sessions Judge, are, as follows:
1)On 25-12-1986 the Police arrested the Editor, Printer and Publisher of a daily newspaper known as 'Wadi Ki Awaz' after registering a case against him with FIR No. 985 of 1986, Police Station, Shergarhi, for the offence under Sections 295-A, 153-A and 120-D of the R.P.C., on the allegation that he had published a short story which was previously published by a newspaper Decan Herald of Karnataka on 7-12-1986, thereby trying to create disharmony between different communities in the State. The said newspaper was published from the 'Falah Aam Press, Bemina' which was also sealed by the police during the course of investigation.
2) By medium of an applieation, the owner of the Press approached the learned Sessions Judge for releasing his Press from the custody of the Police, which came to be dismissed by him by his order dated 3-1-1987, which is impugned in this petition. According to the learned Sessions Judge, the Press has been sealed by the Deputy Commissioner under Section 10 of the Press and Publication Act of 1989 and, therefore, he has no jurisdiction to pass any order in the matter, muchless, when it did not attract the provisions of Section 516-A of the Cr.P.C.
3) Despite a couple of opportunities given to Mr. Mufti Mehraj-ud-Din, learned Additional Advocate General to argue the case, he did not do so.
4) There was no material before the learned Sessions Judge to hold that the police has sealed the press under the orders of the Deputy Commissioner or that it has been done in accordance with the provisions of the Press and Publication Act. The only relevant material produced before the learned Sessions Judge was the report of the police. From the perusal of the said report, it is quite clear that when the case was registered against the Editor, Printer and Publisher of the daily newspaper 'Wadi Ki Awaz' by the Police, they also sealed the Press, wherefrom the said newspaper was published Why the Press has been sealed and under what provision of law, it is not indicated in the said report? As the owner of the press was also arraigned as an accused along with the Editor of the said newspaper by the police in the above mentioned case, they, therefore, sealed the press also. It is not stated anywhere by the police that they have sealed the press under the orders of the Deputy Commissioner in accordance with the provisions of the Press and Publication Act. Why and how the learned Sessions Judge has held so, is not understandable. If the Public Prosecutor has said so in his objections without producing any material, was it not incumbent upon the learned Sessions Judge to see the said order himself? Should he take the word of the Public Prosecutor as the gospel truth? Not only that, the learned Sessions Judge has presumed, and that too, wrongly, that the action impugned was taken by the Deputy Commissioner, Let alone a Deputy Commissioner, even the District Magistrate has no power to take such action under the provisions of the said Act. It is the Government alone which is competent to take any action under the provisions of the said Act. In these circumstances, the learned Sessions Judge is factually wrong in saying that the action against the Press was taken under the provisions of the Press and Publication Act. There is nothing on the file to justify the making of such a bald assertion by the learned Sessions Judge. Viewed thus, the learned Sessions Judge is also legally wrong to hold that he had no jurisdiction to pass any ordet in the matter,
5) Now as regards the contention of learned Sessions Judge that the action impugned does not come within the purview of Section 516-A, Cr.P.C., and that he could not pass any order for the disposal of the Press in question, I think it would be profitable to briefly refer to the relevant sections of the Cr.P.C., in this regard.
3. Sections 516-A, 525 deal with the powers of courts in the matter of disposal of property. Under which Section the order is to be passed depends upon the circumstances in which 'the property was seized or produced. Sections 516-A and 517 deal with cases which have actually come up before the court in an inquiry or a trial. Section 516-A enables the court to provide for interim custody of goods. Section 517 provides for the disposal after the inquiry or trial is over. Section 523 provides for the disposal of property seized by the Police by virtue of their own powers (a) Under Section 51 by search of an arrested person; or (b) under suspicion of being stolen (Sections 54, 550); or(c) under suspicion of being connected with an offence (Sections 165, 166, 550).,
4. Reading Sections 517 and 523 together, it seems that once property is sent on to a court with a charge sheet, it is removed from the provisions of Section 523 and Section 517 is applicable. Section 517 applies to all property produced before a court in an enquiry or trial, while Section 523 applies to property not so produced but still in the possession of the Police, who seized it. Section 523 applies to property seized by the Police where there has been no enquiry or trial, and whether the property has or has not been produced in the court. It applies even in a case coming under Section 517, if on the facts the court finds itself unable to make an order as indicated therein.
5. Applying the above said law to the present case, it seems only Section 523 would be applicable to it, though it is a moot question whether the Press at all could be seized. I don't think it is necessary for me to go into that question in this case. Suffice to say, that it is not correct as held by the learned Sessions Judge, that he had no power under the Cr.P.C., to deal with such a case. Under Section 523, he had the power to make any order as to the disposal of the Press.
6. In the facts and circumstances of the case, moreso, when the learned Sessions Judge has wrongly ousted his jurisdiction to pass any order, it is a fit case where this Court should invoke its power under Section 561-A of the Cr.P.C., to make such order as may be necessary to prevent abuse of the process of court, or otherwise to secure the ends of justice. The order impugned passed by the learned Sessions Judge has, in my opinion, abused the process of court as no remedy has been left to the petitioner for getting the wrong done to him by the police, undone. No alternative was left to the petitioner, but to approach this Court for invoking its inherent power and nothing in the Code of Criminal Procedure shall be deemed to limit or affect the inherent power of this Court to make such orders, as may be necessary to give effect to any order under the Code, as to prevent abuse of the process of any court or otherwise to secure the ends of justice. For these very reasons, the order impugned passed by the learned Sessions Judge was quashed on 18-3-1987.
7. The file is ordered to be consigned to records. The record received from the learned Sessions Judge, shall be remitted back to him.