Krushna Charan Mohanty Vs. State of Orissa - Court Judgment

Excerpt:

Notice (8): Undefined variable: kword [APP/View/Case/amp.ctp, line 120]
Code Context
                                echo "<div class='table-bordered'><b>Excerpt:</b><br/>";

                                    if (trim($desc['Judgement']['casenote'])) {

                                        echo $this->Wand->highlight($this->Excerpt->extractRelevant($kword,strtolower(strip_tags($desc['Judgement']['casenote']))), $query);
$viewFile = '/home/legalcrystal/app/View/Case/amp.ctp'
$dataForView = array(
	'title_for_layout' => 'Krushna Charan Mohanty Vs State of Orissa - Citation 531760 - Court Judgment | ',
	'desc' => array(
		'Judgement' => array(
			'id' => '531760',
			'acts' => '',
			'appealno' => '',
			'appellant' => 'Krushna Charan Mohanty',
			'authreffered' => '',
			'casename' => 'Krushna Charan Mohanty Vs. State of Orissa',
			'casenote' => ' - LABOUR & SERVICES 
Pay Scale:[Tarun Chatterjee & R.M. Lodha,JJ] Fixation - Orissa Service Code (1939), Rule 74(b)  Promotion - Government servant, by virtue of Rule 74(b), gets higher pay than what he was getting immediately before his promotion - Circular Dated 19.3.1983 modifying earlier Circular Dated 18.6.1982 resulting in  reduction of pay of employee on promotion  Held, It is not legal. Statutory Rules cannot be altered or amended by such Executive orders or Circulars or Instructions nor can they replace Statutory Rules.
 -  For better appreciation of the point in issue, Section 457 of the Code is extracted hereunder in extenso:',
			'caseanalysis' => null,
			'casesref' => 'M. S. Jaggi v. Subase;',
			'citingcases' => '',
			'counselplain' => '',
			'counseldef' => '',
			'court' => 'Orissa',
			'court_type' => 'HC',
			'decidedon' => '1988-09-12',
			'deposition' => '',
			'favorof' => null,
			'findings' => null,
			'judge' => 'G.B. Patnaik, J.',
			'judgement' => 'ORDER<p style="text-align: justify;">G.B. Patnaik, J.</p><p style="text-align: justify;">1. This application has been filed invoking the jurisdiction of this Court under Section 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, as the petitioner's application for release of the motor vehicle was rejected by the learned Magistrate and on revision, the said order of rejection has been affirmed,</p><p style="text-align: justify;">2. In connection with G.R. Case No. 232 of 1988 under Sections 436/323/427/379, Penal Code, a truck bearing registration under ORL 537 was seized by the Investigating Officer on 22-7-1988. The petitioner is admittedly the owner of the said truck. After the seizure, the petitioner filed an application invoking the jurisdiction of the Magistrate under Section 457 of the Code of Criminal Procedure for getting custody of the vehicle. The learned Magistrate rejected the said application solely on the ground that the case being one triable by Court of Session, he had no jurisdiction to deal with the application. The petitioner, therefore, carried a revision to the Court of Session. The learned Sessions Judge came to the conclusion that the Magistrate was in error to hold that in a case triable by Court of Session, the Magistrate has no jurisdiction under Section 457 for release of the seized property. In fact, the learned Sessions Judge has held that Section 457 of the Code does not put any embargo on a Magistrate to pass any order regarding disposal of the property involved in a case though triable by a Court of Session, but he has rejected the application on the ground that S .457 in terms cannot apply since the matter is still under investigation. In support of the aforesaid finding, the Sessions Judge has placed reliance on the decision of the Andhra Pradesh High Court in the case of State v. Smt. Syad Belouis Sultana (1986) 1 Crimes 177.</p><p style="text-align: justify;">3. The short question for consideration, therefore, is whether Section 487 of the Code can at all be attracted during the continuance of investigation and before filing of the charge-sheet or final form. Chapter XXXIV of the Code of Criminal Procedure deals with disposal of property. Section 451 contained therein deals with a situation when any property is produced in any criminal Court during any inquiry or trial and the court thinks it fit for passing appropriate order for proper custody of such property pending conclusion of the inquiry or trial. Section 452 deals with a situation where after conclusion of the trial, the Court can pass an order regarding disposal of the property in question. Section 457 is the only other section in the chapter dealing with disposal of property. For better appreciation of the point in issue, Section 457 of the Code is extracted hereunder in extenso:</p><p style="text-align: justify;">457. Procedure by police upon seizures of property:</p><p style="text-align: justify;">(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 property or the delivery of such property to the person entitled to the possession thereof, or if such person cannot be ascertained, respecting the custody and production of such property.</p><p style="text-align: justify;">(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.</p><p style="text-align: justify;">This section substantially corresponds to Section 523 of the Criminal Procedure Code, 1898. 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 any inquiry or trial, then the Magistrate gets jurisdiction under Section 487(1) to pass appropriate order for disposal of such property or for delivery of such property to ' the person entitled to the possession; thereof. If a literal meaning to the aforesaid provision is given, then though a property might have been seized by the police, yet until such seizure is reported to a Magistrate then the Magistrate will have no jurisdiction to pass any order under Section 457(1) of the Code. The learned Judge of the Andhra Pradesh High Court in deciding the case reported in (1986) 1 Crimes, 177, appears to have given the literal meaning to the words used in Section 457(1). But in my view such an interpretation would cause great injustice and there is no legislative intent behind giving the aforesaid interpretation. Placing of a report by the police before a Magistrate cannot be said to be a condition precedent for entertaining an application under Section 457. If the fact of seizure is brought to the notice of the Magistrate by any party interested or even, by a party who applies 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. In fact, this question has been lucidly discussed in the case of M. S. Jaggi v. Subase chandra Mohapatra (1977) 44 Cut LT 139 : 1977 Cri LJ 1902. After analysing the different provisions of the Code and considering Section 523 of the present Code, the learned Judge observed (at p. 1904):.Even though there be no provision in the Code obligating the police to report its seizure, nevertheless, if the factum of seizure is reported to the Magistrate by sources other than the police or the fact o f seizure otherwise comes to the knowledge of the Magistrate, he acquires jurisdiction under this section to pass appropriate orders in respect of the seized property. As in this case the factum of seizure was reported to him by the opposite party filing an application under Section 457, the Magistrate acquired jurisdiction to pass appropriate orders as he thought fit respecting the disposal of the seized property.</p><p style="text-align: justify;">In this view of the matter, the order of the learned Sessions Judge cannot be sustained and I would hold that the Magistrate had jurisdiction under Section 457 of the Code to pass appropriate order regarding release of the property and giving custody of the same.</p><p style="text-align: justify;">4. The next question for consideration would be as to on what terms the custody of the vehicle should be given to the petitioner who is admittedly the owner of the vehicle. This is a matter over which the Magistrate has not exercised his discretion since he illegally rejected the application as not being entertainable. Consequently, I think it appropriate to hold that the Magistrate should now consider the application filed by the petitioner and release the vehicle to the custody of the petitioner on such terms as he thinks fit in the facts and circumstances of the case.</p><p style="text-align: justify;">5. This Criminal Miscellaneous Application is accordingly allowed with the aforesaid direction and the petitioner may now appear before the learned Magistrate whereafter the Magistrate on hearing the petitioner would pass appropriate orders with regard to the terms for the release of the vehicle in favour of the petitioner.<p style="text-align: justify;"></p><p style="text-align: justify;">',
			'observations' => null,
			'overruledby' => null,
			'prhistory' => '',
			'pubs' => '66(1988)CLT816; 1989CriLJ1025',
			'ratiodecidendi' => '',
			'respondent' => 'State of Orissa',
			'sub' => 'Criminal',
			'link' => null,
			'circuit' => null
		)
	),
	'casename_url' => 'krushna-charan-mohanty-vs-state-orissa',
	'args' => array(
		(int) 0 => '531760',
		(int) 1 => 'krushna-charan-mohanty-vs-state-orissa'
	)
)
$title_for_layout = 'Krushna Charan Mohanty Vs State of Orissa - Citation 531760 - Court Judgment | '
$desc = array(
	'Judgement' => array(
		'id' => '531760',
		'acts' => '',
		'appealno' => '',
		'appellant' => 'Krushna Charan Mohanty',
		'authreffered' => '',
		'casename' => 'Krushna Charan Mohanty Vs. State of Orissa',
		'casenote' => ' - LABOUR & SERVICES 
Pay Scale:[Tarun Chatterjee & R.M. Lodha,JJ] Fixation - Orissa Service Code (1939), Rule 74(b)  Promotion - Government servant, by virtue of Rule 74(b), gets higher pay than what he was getting immediately before his promotion - Circular Dated 19.3.1983 modifying earlier Circular Dated 18.6.1982 resulting in  reduction of pay of employee on promotion  Held, It is not legal. Statutory Rules cannot be altered or amended by such Executive orders or Circulars or Instructions nor can they replace Statutory Rules.
 -  For better appreciation of the point in issue, Section 457 of the Code is extracted hereunder in extenso:',
		'caseanalysis' => null,
		'casesref' => 'M. S. Jaggi v. Subase;',
		'citingcases' => '',
		'counselplain' => '',
		'counseldef' => '',
		'court' => 'Orissa',
		'court_type' => 'HC',
		'decidedon' => '1988-09-12',
		'deposition' => '',
		'favorof' => null,
		'findings' => null,
		'judge' => 'G.B. Patnaik, J.',
		'judgement' => 'ORDER<p>G.B. Patnaik, J.</p><p>1. This application has been filed invoking the jurisdiction of this Court under Section 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, as the petitioner's application for release of the motor vehicle was rejected by the learned Magistrate and on revision, the said order of rejection has been affirmed,</p><p>2. In connection with G.R. Case No. 232 of 1988 under Sections 436/323/427/379, Penal Code, a truck bearing registration under ORL 537 was seized by the Investigating Officer on 22-7-1988. The petitioner is admittedly the owner of the said truck. After the seizure, the petitioner filed an application invoking the jurisdiction of the Magistrate under Section 457 of the Code of Criminal Procedure for getting custody of the vehicle. The learned Magistrate rejected the said application solely on the ground that the case being one triable by Court of Session, he had no jurisdiction to deal with the application. The petitioner, therefore, carried a revision to the Court of Session. The learned Sessions Judge came to the conclusion that the Magistrate was in error to hold that in a case triable by Court of Session, the Magistrate has no jurisdiction under Section 457 for release of the seized property. In fact, the learned Sessions Judge has held that Section 457 of the Code does not put any embargo on a Magistrate to pass any order regarding disposal of the property involved in a case though triable by a Court of Session, but he has rejected the application on the ground that S .457 in terms cannot apply since the matter is still under investigation. In support of the aforesaid finding, the Sessions Judge has placed reliance on the decision of the Andhra Pradesh High Court in the case of State v. Smt. Syad Belouis Sultana (1986) 1 Crimes 177.</p><p>3. The short question for consideration, therefore, is whether Section 487 of the Code can at all be attracted during the continuance of investigation and before filing of the charge-sheet or final form. Chapter XXXIV of the Code of Criminal Procedure deals with disposal of property. Section 451 contained therein deals with a situation when any property is produced in any criminal Court during any inquiry or trial and the court thinks it fit for passing appropriate order for proper custody of such property pending conclusion of the inquiry or trial. Section 452 deals with a situation where after conclusion of the trial, the Court can pass an order regarding disposal of the property in question. Section 457 is the only other section in the chapter dealing with disposal of property. For better appreciation of the point in issue, Section 457 of the Code is extracted hereunder in extenso:</p><p>457. Procedure by police upon seizures of property:</p><p>(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 property or the delivery of such property to the person entitled to the possession thereof, or if such person cannot be ascertained, respecting the custody and production of such property.</p><p>(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.</p><p>This section substantially corresponds to Section 523 of the Criminal Procedure Code, 1898. 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 any inquiry or trial, then the Magistrate gets jurisdiction under Section 487(1) to pass appropriate order for disposal of such property or for delivery of such property to ' the person entitled to the possession; thereof. If a literal meaning to the aforesaid provision is given, then though a property might have been seized by the police, yet until such seizure is reported to a Magistrate then the Magistrate will have no jurisdiction to pass any order under Section 457(1) of the Code. The learned Judge of the Andhra Pradesh High Court in deciding the case reported in (1986) 1 Crimes, 177, appears to have given the literal meaning to the words used in Section 457(1). But in my view such an interpretation would cause great injustice and there is no legislative intent behind giving the aforesaid interpretation. Placing of a report by the police before a Magistrate cannot be said to be a condition precedent for entertaining an application under Section 457. If the fact of seizure is brought to the notice of the Magistrate by any party interested or even, by a party who applies 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. In fact, this question has been lucidly discussed in the case of M. S. Jaggi v. Subase chandra Mohapatra (1977) 44 Cut LT 139 : 1977 Cri LJ 1902. After analysing the different provisions of the Code and considering Section 523 of the present Code, the learned Judge observed (at p. 1904):.Even though there be no provision in the Code obligating the police to report its seizure, nevertheless, if the factum of seizure is reported to the Magistrate by sources other than the police or the fact o f seizure otherwise comes to the knowledge of the Magistrate, he acquires jurisdiction under this section to pass appropriate orders in respect of the seized property. As in this case the factum of seizure was reported to him by the opposite party filing an application under Section 457, the Magistrate acquired jurisdiction to pass appropriate orders as he thought fit respecting the disposal of the seized property.</p><p>In this view of the matter, the order of the learned Sessions Judge cannot be sustained and I would hold that the Magistrate had jurisdiction under Section 457 of the Code to pass appropriate order regarding release of the property and giving custody of the same.</p><p>4. The next question for consideration would be as to on what terms the custody of the vehicle should be given to the petitioner who is admittedly the owner of the vehicle. This is a matter over which the Magistrate has not exercised his discretion since he illegally rejected the application as not being entertainable. Consequently, I think it appropriate to hold that the Magistrate should now consider the application filed by the petitioner and release the vehicle to the custody of the petitioner on such terms as he thinks fit in the facts and circumstances of the case.</p><p>5. This Criminal Miscellaneous Application is accordingly allowed with the aforesaid direction and the petitioner may now appear before the learned Magistrate whereafter the Magistrate on hearing the petitioner would pass appropriate orders with regard to the terms for the release of the vehicle in favour of the petitioner.<p></p><p>',
		'observations' => null,
		'overruledby' => null,
		'prhistory' => '',
		'pubs' => '66(1988)CLT816; 1989CriLJ1025',
		'ratiodecidendi' => '',
		'respondent' => 'State of Orissa',
		'sub' => 'Criminal',
		'link' => null,
		'circuit' => null
	)
)
$casename_url = 'krushna-charan-mohanty-vs-state-orissa'
$args = array(
	(int) 0 => '531760',
	(int) 1 => 'krushna-charan-mohanty-vs-state-orissa'
)
$url = 'https://sooperkanoon.com/case/amp/531760/krushna-charan-mohanty-vs-state-orissa'
$ctype = ' High Court'
$caseref = 'M. S. Jaggi v. Subase<br>'
include - APP/View/Case/amp.ctp, line 120
View::_evaluate() - CORE/Cake/View/View.php, line 971
View::_render() - CORE/Cake/View/View.php, line 933
View::render() - CORE/Cake/View/View.php, line 473
Controller::render() - CORE/Cake/Controller/Controller.php, line 963
Dispatcher::_invoke() - CORE/Cake/Routing/Dispatcher.php, line 200
Dispatcher::dispatch() - CORE/Cake/Routing/Dispatcher.php, line 167
[main] - APP/webroot/index.php, line 109

Notice (8): Undefined variable: query [APP/View/Case/amp.ctp, line 120]
Code Context
                                echo "<div class='table-bordered'><b>Excerpt:</b><br/>";

                                    if (trim($desc['Judgement']['casenote'])) {

                                        echo $this->Wand->highlight($this->Excerpt->extractRelevant($kword,strtolower(strip_tags($desc['Judgement']['casenote']))), $query);
$viewFile = '/home/legalcrystal/app/View/Case/amp.ctp'
$dataForView = array(
	'title_for_layout' => 'Krushna Charan Mohanty Vs State of Orissa - Citation 531760 - Court Judgment | ',
	'desc' => array(
		'Judgement' => array(
			'id' => '531760',
			'acts' => '',
			'appealno' => '',
			'appellant' => 'Krushna Charan Mohanty',
			'authreffered' => '',
			'casename' => 'Krushna Charan Mohanty Vs. State of Orissa',
			'casenote' => ' - LABOUR & SERVICES 
Pay Scale:[Tarun Chatterjee & R.M. Lodha,JJ] Fixation - Orissa Service Code (1939), Rule 74(b)  Promotion - Government servant, by virtue of Rule 74(b), gets higher pay than what he was getting immediately before his promotion - Circular Dated 19.3.1983 modifying earlier Circular Dated 18.6.1982 resulting in  reduction of pay of employee on promotion  Held, It is not legal. Statutory Rules cannot be altered or amended by such Executive orders or Circulars or Instructions nor can they replace Statutory Rules.
 -  For better appreciation of the point in issue, Section 457 of the Code is extracted hereunder in extenso:',
			'caseanalysis' => null,
			'casesref' => 'M. S. Jaggi v. Subase;',
			'citingcases' => '',
			'counselplain' => '',
			'counseldef' => '',
			'court' => 'Orissa',
			'court_type' => 'HC',
			'decidedon' => '1988-09-12',
			'deposition' => '',
			'favorof' => null,
			'findings' => null,
			'judge' => 'G.B. Patnaik, J.',
			'judgement' => 'ORDER<p style="text-align: justify;">G.B. Patnaik, J.</p><p style="text-align: justify;">1. This application has been filed invoking the jurisdiction of this Court under Section 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, as the petitioner's application for release of the motor vehicle was rejected by the learned Magistrate and on revision, the said order of rejection has been affirmed,</p><p style="text-align: justify;">2. In connection with G.R. Case No. 232 of 1988 under Sections 436/323/427/379, Penal Code, a truck bearing registration under ORL 537 was seized by the Investigating Officer on 22-7-1988. The petitioner is admittedly the owner of the said truck. After the seizure, the petitioner filed an application invoking the jurisdiction of the Magistrate under Section 457 of the Code of Criminal Procedure for getting custody of the vehicle. The learned Magistrate rejected the said application solely on the ground that the case being one triable by Court of Session, he had no jurisdiction to deal with the application. The petitioner, therefore, carried a revision to the Court of Session. The learned Sessions Judge came to the conclusion that the Magistrate was in error to hold that in a case triable by Court of Session, the Magistrate has no jurisdiction under Section 457 for release of the seized property. In fact, the learned Sessions Judge has held that Section 457 of the Code does not put any embargo on a Magistrate to pass any order regarding disposal of the property involved in a case though triable by a Court of Session, but he has rejected the application on the ground that S .457 in terms cannot apply since the matter is still under investigation. In support of the aforesaid finding, the Sessions Judge has placed reliance on the decision of the Andhra Pradesh High Court in the case of State v. Smt. Syad Belouis Sultana (1986) 1 Crimes 177.</p><p style="text-align: justify;">3. The short question for consideration, therefore, is whether Section 487 of the Code can at all be attracted during the continuance of investigation and before filing of the charge-sheet or final form. Chapter XXXIV of the Code of Criminal Procedure deals with disposal of property. Section 451 contained therein deals with a situation when any property is produced in any criminal Court during any inquiry or trial and the court thinks it fit for passing appropriate order for proper custody of such property pending conclusion of the inquiry or trial. Section 452 deals with a situation where after conclusion of the trial, the Court can pass an order regarding disposal of the property in question. Section 457 is the only other section in the chapter dealing with disposal of property. For better appreciation of the point in issue, Section 457 of the Code is extracted hereunder in extenso:</p><p style="text-align: justify;">457. Procedure by police upon seizures of property:</p><p style="text-align: justify;">(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 property or the delivery of such property to the person entitled to the possession thereof, or if such person cannot be ascertained, respecting the custody and production of such property.</p><p style="text-align: justify;">(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.</p><p style="text-align: justify;">This section substantially corresponds to Section 523 of the Criminal Procedure Code, 1898. 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 any inquiry or trial, then the Magistrate gets jurisdiction under Section 487(1) to pass appropriate order for disposal of such property or for delivery of such property to ' the person entitled to the possession; thereof. If a literal meaning to the aforesaid provision is given, then though a property might have been seized by the police, yet until such seizure is reported to a Magistrate then the Magistrate will have no jurisdiction to pass any order under Section 457(1) of the Code. The learned Judge of the Andhra Pradesh High Court in deciding the case reported in (1986) 1 Crimes, 177, appears to have given the literal meaning to the words used in Section 457(1). But in my view such an interpretation would cause great injustice and there is no legislative intent behind giving the aforesaid interpretation. Placing of a report by the police before a Magistrate cannot be said to be a condition precedent for entertaining an application under Section 457. If the fact of seizure is brought to the notice of the Magistrate by any party interested or even, by a party who applies 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. In fact, this question has been lucidly discussed in the case of M. S. Jaggi v. Subase chandra Mohapatra (1977) 44 Cut LT 139 : 1977 Cri LJ 1902. After analysing the different provisions of the Code and considering Section 523 of the present Code, the learned Judge observed (at p. 1904):.Even though there be no provision in the Code obligating the police to report its seizure, nevertheless, if the factum of seizure is reported to the Magistrate by sources other than the police or the fact o f seizure otherwise comes to the knowledge of the Magistrate, he acquires jurisdiction under this section to pass appropriate orders in respect of the seized property. As in this case the factum of seizure was reported to him by the opposite party filing an application under Section 457, the Magistrate acquired jurisdiction to pass appropriate orders as he thought fit respecting the disposal of the seized property.</p><p style="text-align: justify;">In this view of the matter, the order of the learned Sessions Judge cannot be sustained and I would hold that the Magistrate had jurisdiction under Section 457 of the Code to pass appropriate order regarding release of the property and giving custody of the same.</p><p style="text-align: justify;">4. The next question for consideration would be as to on what terms the custody of the vehicle should be given to the petitioner who is admittedly the owner of the vehicle. This is a matter over which the Magistrate has not exercised his discretion since he illegally rejected the application as not being entertainable. Consequently, I think it appropriate to hold that the Magistrate should now consider the application filed by the petitioner and release the vehicle to the custody of the petitioner on such terms as he thinks fit in the facts and circumstances of the case.</p><p style="text-align: justify;">5. This Criminal Miscellaneous Application is accordingly allowed with the aforesaid direction and the petitioner may now appear before the learned Magistrate whereafter the Magistrate on hearing the petitioner would pass appropriate orders with regard to the terms for the release of the vehicle in favour of the petitioner.<p style="text-align: justify;"></p><p style="text-align: justify;">',
			'observations' => null,
			'overruledby' => null,
			'prhistory' => '',
			'pubs' => '66(1988)CLT816; 1989CriLJ1025',
			'ratiodecidendi' => '',
			'respondent' => 'State of Orissa',
			'sub' => 'Criminal',
			'link' => null,
			'circuit' => null
		)
	),
	'casename_url' => 'krushna-charan-mohanty-vs-state-orissa',
	'args' => array(
		(int) 0 => '531760',
		(int) 1 => 'krushna-charan-mohanty-vs-state-orissa'
	)
)
$title_for_layout = 'Krushna Charan Mohanty Vs State of Orissa - Citation 531760 - Court Judgment | '
$desc = array(
	'Judgement' => array(
		'id' => '531760',
		'acts' => '',
		'appealno' => '',
		'appellant' => 'Krushna Charan Mohanty',
		'authreffered' => '',
		'casename' => 'Krushna Charan Mohanty Vs. State of Orissa',
		'casenote' => ' - LABOUR & SERVICES 
Pay Scale:[Tarun Chatterjee & R.M. Lodha,JJ] Fixation - Orissa Service Code (1939), Rule 74(b)  Promotion - Government servant, by virtue of Rule 74(b), gets higher pay than what he was getting immediately before his promotion - Circular Dated 19.3.1983 modifying earlier Circular Dated 18.6.1982 resulting in  reduction of pay of employee on promotion  Held, It is not legal. Statutory Rules cannot be altered or amended by such Executive orders or Circulars or Instructions nor can they replace Statutory Rules.
 -  For better appreciation of the point in issue, Section 457 of the Code is extracted hereunder in extenso:',
		'caseanalysis' => null,
		'casesref' => 'M. S. Jaggi v. Subase;',
		'citingcases' => '',
		'counselplain' => '',
		'counseldef' => '',
		'court' => 'Orissa',
		'court_type' => 'HC',
		'decidedon' => '1988-09-12',
		'deposition' => '',
		'favorof' => null,
		'findings' => null,
		'judge' => 'G.B. Patnaik, J.',
		'judgement' => 'ORDER<p>G.B. Patnaik, J.</p><p>1. This application has been filed invoking the jurisdiction of this Court under Section 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, as the petitioner's application for release of the motor vehicle was rejected by the learned Magistrate and on revision, the said order of rejection has been affirmed,</p><p>2. In connection with G.R. Case No. 232 of 1988 under Sections 436/323/427/379, Penal Code, a truck bearing registration under ORL 537 was seized by the Investigating Officer on 22-7-1988. The petitioner is admittedly the owner of the said truck. After the seizure, the petitioner filed an application invoking the jurisdiction of the Magistrate under Section 457 of the Code of Criminal Procedure for getting custody of the vehicle. The learned Magistrate rejected the said application solely on the ground that the case being one triable by Court of Session, he had no jurisdiction to deal with the application. The petitioner, therefore, carried a revision to the Court of Session. The learned Sessions Judge came to the conclusion that the Magistrate was in error to hold that in a case triable by Court of Session, the Magistrate has no jurisdiction under Section 457 for release of the seized property. In fact, the learned Sessions Judge has held that Section 457 of the Code does not put any embargo on a Magistrate to pass any order regarding disposal of the property involved in a case though triable by a Court of Session, but he has rejected the application on the ground that S .457 in terms cannot apply since the matter is still under investigation. In support of the aforesaid finding, the Sessions Judge has placed reliance on the decision of the Andhra Pradesh High Court in the case of State v. Smt. Syad Belouis Sultana (1986) 1 Crimes 177.</p><p>3. The short question for consideration, therefore, is whether Section 487 of the Code can at all be attracted during the continuance of investigation and before filing of the charge-sheet or final form. Chapter XXXIV of the Code of Criminal Procedure deals with disposal of property. Section 451 contained therein deals with a situation when any property is produced in any criminal Court during any inquiry or trial and the court thinks it fit for passing appropriate order for proper custody of such property pending conclusion of the inquiry or trial. Section 452 deals with a situation where after conclusion of the trial, the Court can pass an order regarding disposal of the property in question. Section 457 is the only other section in the chapter dealing with disposal of property. For better appreciation of the point in issue, Section 457 of the Code is extracted hereunder in extenso:</p><p>457. Procedure by police upon seizures of property:</p><p>(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 property or the delivery of such property to the person entitled to the possession thereof, or if such person cannot be ascertained, respecting the custody and production of such property.</p><p>(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.</p><p>This section substantially corresponds to Section 523 of the Criminal Procedure Code, 1898. 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 any inquiry or trial, then the Magistrate gets jurisdiction under Section 487(1) to pass appropriate order for disposal of such property or for delivery of such property to ' the person entitled to the possession; thereof. If a literal meaning to the aforesaid provision is given, then though a property might have been seized by the police, yet until such seizure is reported to a Magistrate then the Magistrate will have no jurisdiction to pass any order under Section 457(1) of the Code. The learned Judge of the Andhra Pradesh High Court in deciding the case reported in (1986) 1 Crimes, 177, appears to have given the literal meaning to the words used in Section 457(1). But in my view such an interpretation would cause great injustice and there is no legislative intent behind giving the aforesaid interpretation. Placing of a report by the police before a Magistrate cannot be said to be a condition precedent for entertaining an application under Section 457. If the fact of seizure is brought to the notice of the Magistrate by any party interested or even, by a party who applies 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. In fact, this question has been lucidly discussed in the case of M. S. Jaggi v. Subase chandra Mohapatra (1977) 44 Cut LT 139 : 1977 Cri LJ 1902. After analysing the different provisions of the Code and considering Section 523 of the present Code, the learned Judge observed (at p. 1904):.Even though there be no provision in the Code obligating the police to report its seizure, nevertheless, if the factum of seizure is reported to the Magistrate by sources other than the police or the fact o f seizure otherwise comes to the knowledge of the Magistrate, he acquires jurisdiction under this section to pass appropriate orders in respect of the seized property. As in this case the factum of seizure was reported to him by the opposite party filing an application under Section 457, the Magistrate acquired jurisdiction to pass appropriate orders as he thought fit respecting the disposal of the seized property.</p><p>In this view of the matter, the order of the learned Sessions Judge cannot be sustained and I would hold that the Magistrate had jurisdiction under Section 457 of the Code to pass appropriate order regarding release of the property and giving custody of the same.</p><p>4. The next question for consideration would be as to on what terms the custody of the vehicle should be given to the petitioner who is admittedly the owner of the vehicle. This is a matter over which the Magistrate has not exercised his discretion since he illegally rejected the application as not being entertainable. Consequently, I think it appropriate to hold that the Magistrate should now consider the application filed by the petitioner and release the vehicle to the custody of the petitioner on such terms as he thinks fit in the facts and circumstances of the case.</p><p>5. This Criminal Miscellaneous Application is accordingly allowed with the aforesaid direction and the petitioner may now appear before the learned Magistrate whereafter the Magistrate on hearing the petitioner would pass appropriate orders with regard to the terms for the release of the vehicle in favour of the petitioner.<p></p><p>',
		'observations' => null,
		'overruledby' => null,
		'prhistory' => '',
		'pubs' => '66(1988)CLT816; 1989CriLJ1025',
		'ratiodecidendi' => '',
		'respondent' => 'State of Orissa',
		'sub' => 'Criminal',
		'link' => null,
		'circuit' => null
	)
)
$casename_url = 'krushna-charan-mohanty-vs-state-orissa'
$args = array(
	(int) 0 => '531760',
	(int) 1 => 'krushna-charan-mohanty-vs-state-orissa'
)
$url = 'https://sooperkanoon.com/case/amp/531760/krushna-charan-mohanty-vs-state-orissa'
$ctype = ' High Court'
$caseref = 'M. S. Jaggi v. Subase<br>'
include - APP/View/Case/amp.ctp, line 120
View::_evaluate() - CORE/Cake/View/View.php, line 971
View::_render() - CORE/Cake/View/View.php, line 933
View::render() - CORE/Cake/View/View.php, line 473
Controller::render() - CORE/Cake/Controller/Controller.php, line 963
Dispatcher::_invoke() - CORE/Cake/Routing/Dispatcher.php, line 200
Dispatcher::dispatch() - CORE/Cake/Routing/Dispatcher.php, line 167
[main] - APP/webroot/index.php, line 109

- labour & services pay scale:[tarun chatterjee & r.m. lodha,jj] fixation - orissa service code (1939), rule 74(b) promotion - government servant, by virtue of rule 74(b), gets higher pay than what he was getting immediately before his promotion - circular dated 19.3.1983 modifying earlier circular dated 18.6.1982 resulting in reduction of pay of employee on promotion held, it is not legal. statutory rules cannot be altered or amended by such executive orders or circulars or instructions nor can they replace statutory rules. - for better appreciation of the point in issue, section 457 of the code is extracted hereunder in extenso:

Notice (8): Undefined variable: kword [APP/View/Case/amp.ctp, line 123]
Code Context
                                    }

                                //highest occurence of word in the judgement

                                echo $this->Wand->highlight($this->Excerpt->extractRelevant($kword,strtolower(strip_tags($desc['Judgement']['judgement']))), $query) . "</div>";
$viewFile = '/home/legalcrystal/app/View/Case/amp.ctp'
$dataForView = array(
	'title_for_layout' => 'Krushna Charan Mohanty Vs State of Orissa - Citation 531760 - Court Judgment | ',
	'desc' => array(
		'Judgement' => array(
			'id' => '531760',
			'acts' => '',
			'appealno' => '',
			'appellant' => 'Krushna Charan Mohanty',
			'authreffered' => '',
			'casename' => 'Krushna Charan Mohanty Vs. State of Orissa',
			'casenote' => ' - LABOUR & SERVICES 
Pay Scale:[Tarun Chatterjee & R.M. Lodha,JJ] Fixation - Orissa Service Code (1939), Rule 74(b)  Promotion - Government servant, by virtue of Rule 74(b), gets higher pay than what he was getting immediately before his promotion - Circular Dated 19.3.1983 modifying earlier Circular Dated 18.6.1982 resulting in  reduction of pay of employee on promotion  Held, It is not legal. Statutory Rules cannot be altered or amended by such Executive orders or Circulars or Instructions nor can they replace Statutory Rules.
 -  For better appreciation of the point in issue, Section 457 of the Code is extracted hereunder in extenso:',
			'caseanalysis' => null,
			'casesref' => 'M. S. Jaggi v. Subase;',
			'citingcases' => '',
			'counselplain' => '',
			'counseldef' => '',
			'court' => 'Orissa',
			'court_type' => 'HC',
			'decidedon' => '1988-09-12',
			'deposition' => '',
			'favorof' => null,
			'findings' => null,
			'judge' => 'G.B. Patnaik, J.',
			'judgement' => 'ORDER<p style="text-align: justify;">G.B. Patnaik, J.</p><p style="text-align: justify;">1. This application has been filed invoking the jurisdiction of this Court under Section 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, as the petitioner's application for release of the motor vehicle was rejected by the learned Magistrate and on revision, the said order of rejection has been affirmed,</p><p style="text-align: justify;">2. In connection with G.R. Case No. 232 of 1988 under Sections 436/323/427/379, Penal Code, a truck bearing registration under ORL 537 was seized by the Investigating Officer on 22-7-1988. The petitioner is admittedly the owner of the said truck. After the seizure, the petitioner filed an application invoking the jurisdiction of the Magistrate under Section 457 of the Code of Criminal Procedure for getting custody of the vehicle. The learned Magistrate rejected the said application solely on the ground that the case being one triable by Court of Session, he had no jurisdiction to deal with the application. The petitioner, therefore, carried a revision to the Court of Session. The learned Sessions Judge came to the conclusion that the Magistrate was in error to hold that in a case triable by Court of Session, the Magistrate has no jurisdiction under Section 457 for release of the seized property. In fact, the learned Sessions Judge has held that Section 457 of the Code does not put any embargo on a Magistrate to pass any order regarding disposal of the property involved in a case though triable by a Court of Session, but he has rejected the application on the ground that S .457 in terms cannot apply since the matter is still under investigation. In support of the aforesaid finding, the Sessions Judge has placed reliance on the decision of the Andhra Pradesh High Court in the case of State v. Smt. Syad Belouis Sultana (1986) 1 Crimes 177.</p><p style="text-align: justify;">3. The short question for consideration, therefore, is whether Section 487 of the Code can at all be attracted during the continuance of investigation and before filing of the charge-sheet or final form. Chapter XXXIV of the Code of Criminal Procedure deals with disposal of property. Section 451 contained therein deals with a situation when any property is produced in any criminal Court during any inquiry or trial and the court thinks it fit for passing appropriate order for proper custody of such property pending conclusion of the inquiry or trial. Section 452 deals with a situation where after conclusion of the trial, the Court can pass an order regarding disposal of the property in question. Section 457 is the only other section in the chapter dealing with disposal of property. For better appreciation of the point in issue, Section 457 of the Code is extracted hereunder in extenso:</p><p style="text-align: justify;">457. Procedure by police upon seizures of property:</p><p style="text-align: justify;">(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 property or the delivery of such property to the person entitled to the possession thereof, or if such person cannot be ascertained, respecting the custody and production of such property.</p><p style="text-align: justify;">(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.</p><p style="text-align: justify;">This section substantially corresponds to Section 523 of the Criminal Procedure Code, 1898. 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 any inquiry or trial, then the Magistrate gets jurisdiction under Section 487(1) to pass appropriate order for disposal of such property or for delivery of such property to ' the person entitled to the possession; thereof. If a literal meaning to the aforesaid provision is given, then though a property might have been seized by the police, yet until such seizure is reported to a Magistrate then the Magistrate will have no jurisdiction to pass any order under Section 457(1) of the Code. The learned Judge of the Andhra Pradesh High Court in deciding the case reported in (1986) 1 Crimes, 177, appears to have given the literal meaning to the words used in Section 457(1). But in my view such an interpretation would cause great injustice and there is no legislative intent behind giving the aforesaid interpretation. Placing of a report by the police before a Magistrate cannot be said to be a condition precedent for entertaining an application under Section 457. If the fact of seizure is brought to the notice of the Magistrate by any party interested or even, by a party who applies 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. In fact, this question has been lucidly discussed in the case of M. S. Jaggi v. Subase chandra Mohapatra (1977) 44 Cut LT 139 : 1977 Cri LJ 1902. After analysing the different provisions of the Code and considering Section 523 of the present Code, the learned Judge observed (at p. 1904):.Even though there be no provision in the Code obligating the police to report its seizure, nevertheless, if the factum of seizure is reported to the Magistrate by sources other than the police or the fact o f seizure otherwise comes to the knowledge of the Magistrate, he acquires jurisdiction under this section to pass appropriate orders in respect of the seized property. As in this case the factum of seizure was reported to him by the opposite party filing an application under Section 457, the Magistrate acquired jurisdiction to pass appropriate orders as he thought fit respecting the disposal of the seized property.</p><p style="text-align: justify;">In this view of the matter, the order of the learned Sessions Judge cannot be sustained and I would hold that the Magistrate had jurisdiction under Section 457 of the Code to pass appropriate order regarding release of the property and giving custody of the same.</p><p style="text-align: justify;">4. The next question for consideration would be as to on what terms the custody of the vehicle should be given to the petitioner who is admittedly the owner of the vehicle. This is a matter over which the Magistrate has not exercised his discretion since he illegally rejected the application as not being entertainable. Consequently, I think it appropriate to hold that the Magistrate should now consider the application filed by the petitioner and release the vehicle to the custody of the petitioner on such terms as he thinks fit in the facts and circumstances of the case.</p><p style="text-align: justify;">5. This Criminal Miscellaneous Application is accordingly allowed with the aforesaid direction and the petitioner may now appear before the learned Magistrate whereafter the Magistrate on hearing the petitioner would pass appropriate orders with regard to the terms for the release of the vehicle in favour of the petitioner.<p style="text-align: justify;"></p><p style="text-align: justify;">',
			'observations' => null,
			'overruledby' => null,
			'prhistory' => '',
			'pubs' => '66(1988)CLT816; 1989CriLJ1025',
			'ratiodecidendi' => '',
			'respondent' => 'State of Orissa',
			'sub' => 'Criminal',
			'link' => null,
			'circuit' => null
		)
	),
	'casename_url' => 'krushna-charan-mohanty-vs-state-orissa',
	'args' => array(
		(int) 0 => '531760',
		(int) 1 => 'krushna-charan-mohanty-vs-state-orissa'
	)
)
$title_for_layout = 'Krushna Charan Mohanty Vs State of Orissa - Citation 531760 - Court Judgment | '
$desc = array(
	'Judgement' => array(
		'id' => '531760',
		'acts' => '',
		'appealno' => '',
		'appellant' => 'Krushna Charan Mohanty',
		'authreffered' => '',
		'casename' => 'Krushna Charan Mohanty Vs. State of Orissa',
		'casenote' => ' - LABOUR & SERVICES 
Pay Scale:[Tarun Chatterjee & R.M. Lodha,JJ] Fixation - Orissa Service Code (1939), Rule 74(b)  Promotion - Government servant, by virtue of Rule 74(b), gets higher pay than what he was getting immediately before his promotion - Circular Dated 19.3.1983 modifying earlier Circular Dated 18.6.1982 resulting in  reduction of pay of employee on promotion  Held, It is not legal. Statutory Rules cannot be altered or amended by such Executive orders or Circulars or Instructions nor can they replace Statutory Rules.
 -  For better appreciation of the point in issue, Section 457 of the Code is extracted hereunder in extenso:',
		'caseanalysis' => null,
		'casesref' => 'M. S. Jaggi v. Subase;',
		'citingcases' => '',
		'counselplain' => '',
		'counseldef' => '',
		'court' => 'Orissa',
		'court_type' => 'HC',
		'decidedon' => '1988-09-12',
		'deposition' => '',
		'favorof' => null,
		'findings' => null,
		'judge' => 'G.B. Patnaik, J.',
		'judgement' => 'ORDER<p>G.B. Patnaik, J.</p><p>1. This application has been filed invoking the jurisdiction of this Court under Section 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, as the petitioner's application for release of the motor vehicle was rejected by the learned Magistrate and on revision, the said order of rejection has been affirmed,</p><p>2. In connection with G.R. Case No. 232 of 1988 under Sections 436/323/427/379, Penal Code, a truck bearing registration under ORL 537 was seized by the Investigating Officer on 22-7-1988. The petitioner is admittedly the owner of the said truck. After the seizure, the petitioner filed an application invoking the jurisdiction of the Magistrate under Section 457 of the Code of Criminal Procedure for getting custody of the vehicle. The learned Magistrate rejected the said application solely on the ground that the case being one triable by Court of Session, he had no jurisdiction to deal with the application. The petitioner, therefore, carried a revision to the Court of Session. The learned Sessions Judge came to the conclusion that the Magistrate was in error to hold that in a case triable by Court of Session, the Magistrate has no jurisdiction under Section 457 for release of the seized property. In fact, the learned Sessions Judge has held that Section 457 of the Code does not put any embargo on a Magistrate to pass any order regarding disposal of the property involved in a case though triable by a Court of Session, but he has rejected the application on the ground that S .457 in terms cannot apply since the matter is still under investigation. In support of the aforesaid finding, the Sessions Judge has placed reliance on the decision of the Andhra Pradesh High Court in the case of State v. Smt. Syad Belouis Sultana (1986) 1 Crimes 177.</p><p>3. The short question for consideration, therefore, is whether Section 487 of the Code can at all be attracted during the continuance of investigation and before filing of the charge-sheet or final form. Chapter XXXIV of the Code of Criminal Procedure deals with disposal of property. Section 451 contained therein deals with a situation when any property is produced in any criminal Court during any inquiry or trial and the court thinks it fit for passing appropriate order for proper custody of such property pending conclusion of the inquiry or trial. Section 452 deals with a situation where after conclusion of the trial, the Court can pass an order regarding disposal of the property in question. Section 457 is the only other section in the chapter dealing with disposal of property. For better appreciation of the point in issue, Section 457 of the Code is extracted hereunder in extenso:</p><p>457. Procedure by police upon seizures of property:</p><p>(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 property or the delivery of such property to the person entitled to the possession thereof, or if such person cannot be ascertained, respecting the custody and production of such property.</p><p>(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.</p><p>This section substantially corresponds to Section 523 of the Criminal Procedure Code, 1898. 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 any inquiry or trial, then the Magistrate gets jurisdiction under Section 487(1) to pass appropriate order for disposal of such property or for delivery of such property to ' the person entitled to the possession; thereof. If a literal meaning to the aforesaid provision is given, then though a property might have been seized by the police, yet until such seizure is reported to a Magistrate then the Magistrate will have no jurisdiction to pass any order under Section 457(1) of the Code. The learned Judge of the Andhra Pradesh High Court in deciding the case reported in (1986) 1 Crimes, 177, appears to have given the literal meaning to the words used in Section 457(1). But in my view such an interpretation would cause great injustice and there is no legislative intent behind giving the aforesaid interpretation. Placing of a report by the police before a Magistrate cannot be said to be a condition precedent for entertaining an application under Section 457. If the fact of seizure is brought to the notice of the Magistrate by any party interested or even, by a party who applies 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. In fact, this question has been lucidly discussed in the case of M. S. Jaggi v. Subase chandra Mohapatra (1977) 44 Cut LT 139 : 1977 Cri LJ 1902. After analysing the different provisions of the Code and considering Section 523 of the present Code, the learned Judge observed (at p. 1904):.Even though there be no provision in the Code obligating the police to report its seizure, nevertheless, if the factum of seizure is reported to the Magistrate by sources other than the police or the fact o f seizure otherwise comes to the knowledge of the Magistrate, he acquires jurisdiction under this section to pass appropriate orders in respect of the seized property. As in this case the factum of seizure was reported to him by the opposite party filing an application under Section 457, the Magistrate acquired jurisdiction to pass appropriate orders as he thought fit respecting the disposal of the seized property.</p><p>In this view of the matter, the order of the learned Sessions Judge cannot be sustained and I would hold that the Magistrate had jurisdiction under Section 457 of the Code to pass appropriate order regarding release of the property and giving custody of the same.</p><p>4. The next question for consideration would be as to on what terms the custody of the vehicle should be given to the petitioner who is admittedly the owner of the vehicle. This is a matter over which the Magistrate has not exercised his discretion since he illegally rejected the application as not being entertainable. Consequently, I think it appropriate to hold that the Magistrate should now consider the application filed by the petitioner and release the vehicle to the custody of the petitioner on such terms as he thinks fit in the facts and circumstances of the case.</p><p>5. This Criminal Miscellaneous Application is accordingly allowed with the aforesaid direction and the petitioner may now appear before the learned Magistrate whereafter the Magistrate on hearing the petitioner would pass appropriate orders with regard to the terms for the release of the vehicle in favour of the petitioner.<p></p><p>',
		'observations' => null,
		'overruledby' => null,
		'prhistory' => '',
		'pubs' => '66(1988)CLT816; 1989CriLJ1025',
		'ratiodecidendi' => '',
		'respondent' => 'State of Orissa',
		'sub' => 'Criminal',
		'link' => null,
		'circuit' => null
	)
)
$casename_url = 'krushna-charan-mohanty-vs-state-orissa'
$args = array(
	(int) 0 => '531760',
	(int) 1 => 'krushna-charan-mohanty-vs-state-orissa'
)
$url = 'https://sooperkanoon.com/case/amp/531760/krushna-charan-mohanty-vs-state-orissa'
$ctype = ' High Court'
$caseref = 'M. S. Jaggi v. Subase<br>'
include - APP/View/Case/amp.ctp, line 123
View::_evaluate() - CORE/Cake/View/View.php, line 971
View::_render() - CORE/Cake/View/View.php, line 933
View::render() - CORE/Cake/View/View.php, line 473
Controller::render() - CORE/Cake/Controller/Controller.php, line 963
Dispatcher::_invoke() - CORE/Cake/Routing/Dispatcher.php, line 200
Dispatcher::dispatch() - CORE/Cake/Routing/Dispatcher.php, line 167
[main] - APP/webroot/index.php, line 109

Notice (8): Undefined variable: query [APP/View/Case/amp.ctp, line 123]
Code Context
                                    }

                                //highest occurence of word in the judgement

                                echo $this->Wand->highlight($this->Excerpt->extractRelevant($kword,strtolower(strip_tags($desc['Judgement']['judgement']))), $query) . "</div>";
$viewFile = '/home/legalcrystal/app/View/Case/amp.ctp'
$dataForView = array(
	'title_for_layout' => 'Krushna Charan Mohanty Vs State of Orissa - Citation 531760 - Court Judgment | ',
	'desc' => array(
		'Judgement' => array(
			'id' => '531760',
			'acts' => '',
			'appealno' => '',
			'appellant' => 'Krushna Charan Mohanty',
			'authreffered' => '',
			'casename' => 'Krushna Charan Mohanty Vs. State of Orissa',
			'casenote' => ' - LABOUR & SERVICES 
Pay Scale:[Tarun Chatterjee & R.M. Lodha,JJ] Fixation - Orissa Service Code (1939), Rule 74(b)  Promotion - Government servant, by virtue of Rule 74(b), gets higher pay than what he was getting immediately before his promotion - Circular Dated 19.3.1983 modifying earlier Circular Dated 18.6.1982 resulting in  reduction of pay of employee on promotion  Held, It is not legal. Statutory Rules cannot be altered or amended by such Executive orders or Circulars or Instructions nor can they replace Statutory Rules.
 -  For better appreciation of the point in issue, Section 457 of the Code is extracted hereunder in extenso:',
			'caseanalysis' => null,
			'casesref' => 'M. S. Jaggi v. Subase;',
			'citingcases' => '',
			'counselplain' => '',
			'counseldef' => '',
			'court' => 'Orissa',
			'court_type' => 'HC',
			'decidedon' => '1988-09-12',
			'deposition' => '',
			'favorof' => null,
			'findings' => null,
			'judge' => 'G.B. Patnaik, J.',
			'judgement' => 'ORDER<p style="text-align: justify;">G.B. Patnaik, J.</p><p style="text-align: justify;">1. This application has been filed invoking the jurisdiction of this Court under Section 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, as the petitioner's application for release of the motor vehicle was rejected by the learned Magistrate and on revision, the said order of rejection has been affirmed,</p><p style="text-align: justify;">2. In connection with G.R. Case No. 232 of 1988 under Sections 436/323/427/379, Penal Code, a truck bearing registration under ORL 537 was seized by the Investigating Officer on 22-7-1988. The petitioner is admittedly the owner of the said truck. After the seizure, the petitioner filed an application invoking the jurisdiction of the Magistrate under Section 457 of the Code of Criminal Procedure for getting custody of the vehicle. The learned Magistrate rejected the said application solely on the ground that the case being one triable by Court of Session, he had no jurisdiction to deal with the application. The petitioner, therefore, carried a revision to the Court of Session. The learned Sessions Judge came to the conclusion that the Magistrate was in error to hold that in a case triable by Court of Session, the Magistrate has no jurisdiction under Section 457 for release of the seized property. In fact, the learned Sessions Judge has held that Section 457 of the Code does not put any embargo on a Magistrate to pass any order regarding disposal of the property involved in a case though triable by a Court of Session, but he has rejected the application on the ground that S .457 in terms cannot apply since the matter is still under investigation. In support of the aforesaid finding, the Sessions Judge has placed reliance on the decision of the Andhra Pradesh High Court in the case of State v. Smt. Syad Belouis Sultana (1986) 1 Crimes 177.</p><p style="text-align: justify;">3. The short question for consideration, therefore, is whether Section 487 of the Code can at all be attracted during the continuance of investigation and before filing of the charge-sheet or final form. Chapter XXXIV of the Code of Criminal Procedure deals with disposal of property. Section 451 contained therein deals with a situation when any property is produced in any criminal Court during any inquiry or trial and the court thinks it fit for passing appropriate order for proper custody of such property pending conclusion of the inquiry or trial. Section 452 deals with a situation where after conclusion of the trial, the Court can pass an order regarding disposal of the property in question. Section 457 is the only other section in the chapter dealing with disposal of property. For better appreciation of the point in issue, Section 457 of the Code is extracted hereunder in extenso:</p><p style="text-align: justify;">457. Procedure by police upon seizures of property:</p><p style="text-align: justify;">(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 property or the delivery of such property to the person entitled to the possession thereof, or if such person cannot be ascertained, respecting the custody and production of such property.</p><p style="text-align: justify;">(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.</p><p style="text-align: justify;">This section substantially corresponds to Section 523 of the Criminal Procedure Code, 1898. 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 any inquiry or trial, then the Magistrate gets jurisdiction under Section 487(1) to pass appropriate order for disposal of such property or for delivery of such property to ' the person entitled to the possession; thereof. If a literal meaning to the aforesaid provision is given, then though a property might have been seized by the police, yet until such seizure is reported to a Magistrate then the Magistrate will have no jurisdiction to pass any order under Section 457(1) of the Code. The learned Judge of the Andhra Pradesh High Court in deciding the case reported in (1986) 1 Crimes, 177, appears to have given the literal meaning to the words used in Section 457(1). But in my view such an interpretation would cause great injustice and there is no legislative intent behind giving the aforesaid interpretation. Placing of a report by the police before a Magistrate cannot be said to be a condition precedent for entertaining an application under Section 457. If the fact of seizure is brought to the notice of the Magistrate by any party interested or even, by a party who applies 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. In fact, this question has been lucidly discussed in the case of M. S. Jaggi v. Subase chandra Mohapatra (1977) 44 Cut LT 139 : 1977 Cri LJ 1902. After analysing the different provisions of the Code and considering Section 523 of the present Code, the learned Judge observed (at p. 1904):.Even though there be no provision in the Code obligating the police to report its seizure, nevertheless, if the factum of seizure is reported to the Magistrate by sources other than the police or the fact o f seizure otherwise comes to the knowledge of the Magistrate, he acquires jurisdiction under this section to pass appropriate orders in respect of the seized property. As in this case the factum of seizure was reported to him by the opposite party filing an application under Section 457, the Magistrate acquired jurisdiction to pass appropriate orders as he thought fit respecting the disposal of the seized property.</p><p style="text-align: justify;">In this view of the matter, the order of the learned Sessions Judge cannot be sustained and I would hold that the Magistrate had jurisdiction under Section 457 of the Code to pass appropriate order regarding release of the property and giving custody of the same.</p><p style="text-align: justify;">4. The next question for consideration would be as to on what terms the custody of the vehicle should be given to the petitioner who is admittedly the owner of the vehicle. This is a matter over which the Magistrate has not exercised his discretion since he illegally rejected the application as not being entertainable. Consequently, I think it appropriate to hold that the Magistrate should now consider the application filed by the petitioner and release the vehicle to the custody of the petitioner on such terms as he thinks fit in the facts and circumstances of the case.</p><p style="text-align: justify;">5. This Criminal Miscellaneous Application is accordingly allowed with the aforesaid direction and the petitioner may now appear before the learned Magistrate whereafter the Magistrate on hearing the petitioner would pass appropriate orders with regard to the terms for the release of the vehicle in favour of the petitioner.<p style="text-align: justify;"></p><p style="text-align: justify;">',
			'observations' => null,
			'overruledby' => null,
			'prhistory' => '',
			'pubs' => '66(1988)CLT816; 1989CriLJ1025',
			'ratiodecidendi' => '',
			'respondent' => 'State of Orissa',
			'sub' => 'Criminal',
			'link' => null,
			'circuit' => null
		)
	),
	'casename_url' => 'krushna-charan-mohanty-vs-state-orissa',
	'args' => array(
		(int) 0 => '531760',
		(int) 1 => 'krushna-charan-mohanty-vs-state-orissa'
	)
)
$title_for_layout = 'Krushna Charan Mohanty Vs State of Orissa - Citation 531760 - Court Judgment | '
$desc = array(
	'Judgement' => array(
		'id' => '531760',
		'acts' => '',
		'appealno' => '',
		'appellant' => 'Krushna Charan Mohanty',
		'authreffered' => '',
		'casename' => 'Krushna Charan Mohanty Vs. State of Orissa',
		'casenote' => ' - LABOUR & SERVICES 
Pay Scale:[Tarun Chatterjee & R.M. Lodha,JJ] Fixation - Orissa Service Code (1939), Rule 74(b)  Promotion - Government servant, by virtue of Rule 74(b), gets higher pay than what he was getting immediately before his promotion - Circular Dated 19.3.1983 modifying earlier Circular Dated 18.6.1982 resulting in  reduction of pay of employee on promotion  Held, It is not legal. Statutory Rules cannot be altered or amended by such Executive orders or Circulars or Instructions nor can they replace Statutory Rules.
 -  For better appreciation of the point in issue, Section 457 of the Code is extracted hereunder in extenso:',
		'caseanalysis' => null,
		'casesref' => 'M. S. Jaggi v. Subase;',
		'citingcases' => '',
		'counselplain' => '',
		'counseldef' => '',
		'court' => 'Orissa',
		'court_type' => 'HC',
		'decidedon' => '1988-09-12',
		'deposition' => '',
		'favorof' => null,
		'findings' => null,
		'judge' => 'G.B. Patnaik, J.',
		'judgement' => 'ORDER<p>G.B. Patnaik, J.</p><p>1. This application has been filed invoking the jurisdiction of this Court under Section 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, as the petitioner's application for release of the motor vehicle was rejected by the learned Magistrate and on revision, the said order of rejection has been affirmed,</p><p>2. In connection with G.R. Case No. 232 of 1988 under Sections 436/323/427/379, Penal Code, a truck bearing registration under ORL 537 was seized by the Investigating Officer on 22-7-1988. The petitioner is admittedly the owner of the said truck. After the seizure, the petitioner filed an application invoking the jurisdiction of the Magistrate under Section 457 of the Code of Criminal Procedure for getting custody of the vehicle. The learned Magistrate rejected the said application solely on the ground that the case being one triable by Court of Session, he had no jurisdiction to deal with the application. The petitioner, therefore, carried a revision to the Court of Session. The learned Sessions Judge came to the conclusion that the Magistrate was in error to hold that in a case triable by Court of Session, the Magistrate has no jurisdiction under Section 457 for release of the seized property. In fact, the learned Sessions Judge has held that Section 457 of the Code does not put any embargo on a Magistrate to pass any order regarding disposal of the property involved in a case though triable by a Court of Session, but he has rejected the application on the ground that S .457 in terms cannot apply since the matter is still under investigation. In support of the aforesaid finding, the Sessions Judge has placed reliance on the decision of the Andhra Pradesh High Court in the case of State v. Smt. Syad Belouis Sultana (1986) 1 Crimes 177.</p><p>3. The short question for consideration, therefore, is whether Section 487 of the Code can at all be attracted during the continuance of investigation and before filing of the charge-sheet or final form. Chapter XXXIV of the Code of Criminal Procedure deals with disposal of property. Section 451 contained therein deals with a situation when any property is produced in any criminal Court during any inquiry or trial and the court thinks it fit for passing appropriate order for proper custody of such property pending conclusion of the inquiry or trial. Section 452 deals with a situation where after conclusion of the trial, the Court can pass an order regarding disposal of the property in question. Section 457 is the only other section in the chapter dealing with disposal of property. For better appreciation of the point in issue, Section 457 of the Code is extracted hereunder in extenso:</p><p>457. Procedure by police upon seizures of property:</p><p>(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 property or the delivery of such property to the person entitled to the possession thereof, or if such person cannot be ascertained, respecting the custody and production of such property.</p><p>(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.</p><p>This section substantially corresponds to Section 523 of the Criminal Procedure Code, 1898. 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 any inquiry or trial, then the Magistrate gets jurisdiction under Section 487(1) to pass appropriate order for disposal of such property or for delivery of such property to ' the person entitled to the possession; thereof. If a literal meaning to the aforesaid provision is given, then though a property might have been seized by the police, yet until such seizure is reported to a Magistrate then the Magistrate will have no jurisdiction to pass any order under Section 457(1) of the Code. The learned Judge of the Andhra Pradesh High Court in deciding the case reported in (1986) 1 Crimes, 177, appears to have given the literal meaning to the words used in Section 457(1). But in my view such an interpretation would cause great injustice and there is no legislative intent behind giving the aforesaid interpretation. Placing of a report by the police before a Magistrate cannot be said to be a condition precedent for entertaining an application under Section 457. If the fact of seizure is brought to the notice of the Magistrate by any party interested or even, by a party who applies 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. In fact, this question has been lucidly discussed in the case of M. S. Jaggi v. Subase chandra Mohapatra (1977) 44 Cut LT 139 : 1977 Cri LJ 1902. After analysing the different provisions of the Code and considering Section 523 of the present Code, the learned Judge observed (at p. 1904):.Even though there be no provision in the Code obligating the police to report its seizure, nevertheless, if the factum of seizure is reported to the Magistrate by sources other than the police or the fact o f seizure otherwise comes to the knowledge of the Magistrate, he acquires jurisdiction under this section to pass appropriate orders in respect of the seized property. As in this case the factum of seizure was reported to him by the opposite party filing an application under Section 457, the Magistrate acquired jurisdiction to pass appropriate orders as he thought fit respecting the disposal of the seized property.</p><p>In this view of the matter, the order of the learned Sessions Judge cannot be sustained and I would hold that the Magistrate had jurisdiction under Section 457 of the Code to pass appropriate order regarding release of the property and giving custody of the same.</p><p>4. The next question for consideration would be as to on what terms the custody of the vehicle should be given to the petitioner who is admittedly the owner of the vehicle. This is a matter over which the Magistrate has not exercised his discretion since he illegally rejected the application as not being entertainable. Consequently, I think it appropriate to hold that the Magistrate should now consider the application filed by the petitioner and release the vehicle to the custody of the petitioner on such terms as he thinks fit in the facts and circumstances of the case.</p><p>5. This Criminal Miscellaneous Application is accordingly allowed with the aforesaid direction and the petitioner may now appear before the learned Magistrate whereafter the Magistrate on hearing the petitioner would pass appropriate orders with regard to the terms for the release of the vehicle in favour of the petitioner.<p></p><p>',
		'observations' => null,
		'overruledby' => null,
		'prhistory' => '',
		'pubs' => '66(1988)CLT816; 1989CriLJ1025',
		'ratiodecidendi' => '',
		'respondent' => 'State of Orissa',
		'sub' => 'Criminal',
		'link' => null,
		'circuit' => null
	)
)
$casename_url = 'krushna-charan-mohanty-vs-state-orissa'
$args = array(
	(int) 0 => '531760',
	(int) 1 => 'krushna-charan-mohanty-vs-state-orissa'
)
$url = 'https://sooperkanoon.com/case/amp/531760/krushna-charan-mohanty-vs-state-orissa'
$ctype = ' High Court'
$caseref = 'M. S. Jaggi v. Subase<br>'
include - APP/View/Case/amp.ctp, line 123
View::_evaluate() - CORE/Cake/View/View.php, line 971
View::_render() - CORE/Cake/View/View.php, line 933
View::render() - CORE/Cake/View/View.php, line 473
Controller::render() - CORE/Cake/Controller/Controller.php, line 963
Dispatcher::_invoke() - CORE/Cake/Routing/Dispatcher.php, line 200
Dispatcher::dispatch() - CORE/Cake/Routing/Dispatcher.php, line 167
[main] - APP/webroot/index.php, line 109

orderg.b. patnaik, j.1. this application has been filed invoking the jurisdiction of this court under section 482 of the code of criminal procedure, as the petitioner's application for release of the motor vehicle was rejected by the learned magistrate and on revision, the said order of rejection has been affirmed,2. in connection with g.r. case no. 232 of 1988 under sections 436/323/427/379, penal code, a truck bearing registration under orl 537 was seized by the investigating officer on 22-7-1988. the petitioner is admittedly the owner of the said truck. after the seizure, the petitioner filed an application invoking the jurisdiction of the magistrate under section 457 of the code of criminal procedure for getting custody of the vehicle. the learned magistrate rejected the said.....

Judgment:

Notice (8): Undefined variable: query [APP/View/Case/amp.ctp, line 144]
Code Context
                                         echo $this->Adsense->display('responsive_rect'); 

                                        }

                                        echo html_entity_decode($this->Wand->highlight($content[$i], $query));
$viewFile = '/home/legalcrystal/app/View/Case/amp.ctp'
$dataForView = array(
	'title_for_layout' => 'Krushna Charan Mohanty Vs State of Orissa - Citation 531760 - Court Judgment | ',
	'desc' => array(
		'Judgement' => array(
			'id' => '531760',
			'acts' => '',
			'appealno' => '',
			'appellant' => 'Krushna Charan Mohanty',
			'authreffered' => '',
			'casename' => 'Krushna Charan Mohanty Vs. State of Orissa',
			'casenote' => ' - LABOUR & SERVICES 
Pay Scale:[Tarun Chatterjee & R.M. Lodha,JJ] Fixation - Orissa Service Code (1939), Rule 74(b)  Promotion - Government servant, by virtue of Rule 74(b), gets higher pay than what he was getting immediately before his promotion - Circular Dated 19.3.1983 modifying earlier Circular Dated 18.6.1982 resulting in  reduction of pay of employee on promotion  Held, It is not legal. Statutory Rules cannot be altered or amended by such Executive orders or Circulars or Instructions nor can they replace Statutory Rules.
 -  For better appreciation of the point in issue, Section 457 of the Code is extracted hereunder in extenso:',
			'caseanalysis' => null,
			'casesref' => 'M. S. Jaggi v. Subase;',
			'citingcases' => '',
			'counselplain' => '',
			'counseldef' => '',
			'court' => 'Orissa',
			'court_type' => 'HC',
			'decidedon' => '1988-09-12',
			'deposition' => '',
			'favorof' => null,
			'findings' => null,
			'judge' => 'G.B. Patnaik, J.',
			'judgement' => 'ORDER<p style="text-align: justify;">G.B. Patnaik, J.</p><p style="text-align: justify;">1. This application has been filed invoking the jurisdiction of this Court under Section 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, as the petitioner's application for release of the motor vehicle was rejected by the learned Magistrate and on revision, the said order of rejection has been affirmed,</p><p style="text-align: justify;">2. In connection with G.R. Case No. 232 of 1988 under Sections 436/323/427/379, Penal Code, a truck bearing registration under ORL 537 was seized by the Investigating Officer on 22-7-1988. The petitioner is admittedly the owner of the said truck. After the seizure, the petitioner filed an application invoking the jurisdiction of the Magistrate under Section 457 of the Code of Criminal Procedure for getting custody of the vehicle. The learned Magistrate rejected the said application solely on the ground that the case being one triable by Court of Session, he had no jurisdiction to deal with the application. The petitioner, therefore, carried a revision to the Court of Session. The learned Sessions Judge came to the conclusion that the Magistrate was in error to hold that in a case triable by Court of Session, the Magistrate has no jurisdiction under Section 457 for release of the seized property. In fact, the learned Sessions Judge has held that Section 457 of the Code does not put any embargo on a Magistrate to pass any order regarding disposal of the property involved in a case though triable by a Court of Session, but he has rejected the application on the ground that S .457 in terms cannot apply since the matter is still under investigation. In support of the aforesaid finding, the Sessions Judge has placed reliance on the decision of the Andhra Pradesh High Court in the case of State v. Smt. Syad Belouis Sultana (1986) 1 Crimes 177.</p><p style="text-align: justify;">3. The short question for consideration, therefore, is whether Section 487 of the Code can at all be attracted during the continuance of investigation and before filing of the charge-sheet or final form. Chapter XXXIV of the Code of Criminal Procedure deals with disposal of property. Section 451 contained therein deals with a situation when any property is produced in any criminal Court during any inquiry or trial and the court thinks it fit for passing appropriate order for proper custody of such property pending conclusion of the inquiry or trial. Section 452 deals with a situation where after conclusion of the trial, the Court can pass an order regarding disposal of the property in question. Section 457 is the only other section in the chapter dealing with disposal of property. For better appreciation of the point in issue, Section 457 of the Code is extracted hereunder in extenso:</p><p style="text-align: justify;">457. Procedure by police upon seizures of property:</p><p style="text-align: justify;">(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 property or the delivery of such property to the person entitled to the possession thereof, or if such person cannot be ascertained, respecting the custody and production of such property.</p><p style="text-align: justify;">(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.</p><p style="text-align: justify;">This section substantially corresponds to Section 523 of the Criminal Procedure Code, 1898. 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 any inquiry or trial, then the Magistrate gets jurisdiction under Section 487(1) to pass appropriate order for disposal of such property or for delivery of such property to ' the person entitled to the possession; thereof. If a literal meaning to the aforesaid provision is given, then though a property might have been seized by the police, yet until such seizure is reported to a Magistrate then the Magistrate will have no jurisdiction to pass any order under Section 457(1) of the Code. The learned Judge of the Andhra Pradesh High Court in deciding the case reported in (1986) 1 Crimes, 177, appears to have given the literal meaning to the words used in Section 457(1). But in my view such an interpretation would cause great injustice and there is no legislative intent behind giving the aforesaid interpretation. Placing of a report by the police before a Magistrate cannot be said to be a condition precedent for entertaining an application under Section 457. If the fact of seizure is brought to the notice of the Magistrate by any party interested or even, by a party who applies 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. In fact, this question has been lucidly discussed in the case of M. S. Jaggi v. Subase chandra Mohapatra (1977) 44 Cut LT 139 : 1977 Cri LJ 1902. After analysing the different provisions of the Code and considering Section 523 of the present Code, the learned Judge observed (at p. 1904):.Even though there be no provision in the Code obligating the police to report its seizure, nevertheless, if the factum of seizure is reported to the Magistrate by sources other than the police or the fact o f seizure otherwise comes to the knowledge of the Magistrate, he acquires jurisdiction under this section to pass appropriate orders in respect of the seized property. As in this case the factum of seizure was reported to him by the opposite party filing an application under Section 457, the Magistrate acquired jurisdiction to pass appropriate orders as he thought fit respecting the disposal of the seized property.</p><p style="text-align: justify;">In this view of the matter, the order of the learned Sessions Judge cannot be sustained and I would hold that the Magistrate had jurisdiction under Section 457 of the Code to pass appropriate order regarding release of the property and giving custody of the same.</p><p style="text-align: justify;">4. The next question for consideration would be as to on what terms the custody of the vehicle should be given to the petitioner who is admittedly the owner of the vehicle. This is a matter over which the Magistrate has not exercised his discretion since he illegally rejected the application as not being entertainable. Consequently, I think it appropriate to hold that the Magistrate should now consider the application filed by the petitioner and release the vehicle to the custody of the petitioner on such terms as he thinks fit in the facts and circumstances of the case.</p><p style="text-align: justify;">5. This Criminal Miscellaneous Application is accordingly allowed with the aforesaid direction and the petitioner may now appear before the learned Magistrate whereafter the Magistrate on hearing the petitioner would pass appropriate orders with regard to the terms for the release of the vehicle in favour of the petitioner.<p style="text-align: justify;"></p><p style="text-align: justify;">',
			'observations' => null,
			'overruledby' => null,
			'prhistory' => '',
			'pubs' => '66(1988)CLT816; 1989CriLJ1025',
			'ratiodecidendi' => '',
			'respondent' => 'State of Orissa',
			'sub' => 'Criminal',
			'link' => null,
			'circuit' => null
		)
	),
	'casename_url' => 'krushna-charan-mohanty-vs-state-orissa',
	'args' => array(
		(int) 0 => '531760',
		(int) 1 => 'krushna-charan-mohanty-vs-state-orissa'
	)
)
$title_for_layout = 'Krushna Charan Mohanty Vs State of Orissa - Citation 531760 - Court Judgment | '
$desc = array(
	'Judgement' => array(
		'id' => '531760',
		'acts' => '',
		'appealno' => '',
		'appellant' => 'Krushna Charan Mohanty',
		'authreffered' => '',
		'casename' => 'Krushna Charan Mohanty Vs. State of Orissa',
		'casenote' => ' - LABOUR & SERVICES 
Pay Scale:[Tarun Chatterjee & R.M. Lodha,JJ] Fixation - Orissa Service Code (1939), Rule 74(b)  Promotion - Government servant, by virtue of Rule 74(b), gets higher pay than what he was getting immediately before his promotion - Circular Dated 19.3.1983 modifying earlier Circular Dated 18.6.1982 resulting in  reduction of pay of employee on promotion  Held, It is not legal. Statutory Rules cannot be altered or amended by such Executive orders or Circulars or Instructions nor can they replace Statutory Rules.
 -  For better appreciation of the point in issue, Section 457 of the Code is extracted hereunder in extenso:',
		'caseanalysis' => null,
		'casesref' => 'M. S. Jaggi v. Subase;',
		'citingcases' => '',
		'counselplain' => '',
		'counseldef' => '',
		'court' => 'Orissa',
		'court_type' => 'HC',
		'decidedon' => '1988-09-12',
		'deposition' => '',
		'favorof' => null,
		'findings' => null,
		'judge' => 'G.B. Patnaik, J.',
		'judgement' => 'ORDER<p>G.B. Patnaik, J.</p><p>1. This application has been filed invoking the jurisdiction of this Court under Section 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, as the petitioner's application for release of the motor vehicle was rejected by the learned Magistrate and on revision, the said order of rejection has been affirmed,</p><p>2. In connection with G.R. Case No. 232 of 1988 under Sections 436/323/427/379, Penal Code, a truck bearing registration under ORL 537 was seized by the Investigating Officer on 22-7-1988. The petitioner is admittedly the owner of the said truck. After the seizure, the petitioner filed an application invoking the jurisdiction of the Magistrate under Section 457 of the Code of Criminal Procedure for getting custody of the vehicle. The learned Magistrate rejected the said application solely on the ground that the case being one triable by Court of Session, he had no jurisdiction to deal with the application. The petitioner, therefore, carried a revision to the Court of Session. The learned Sessions Judge came to the conclusion that the Magistrate was in error to hold that in a case triable by Court of Session, the Magistrate has no jurisdiction under Section 457 for release of the seized property. In fact, the learned Sessions Judge has held that Section 457 of the Code does not put any embargo on a Magistrate to pass any order regarding disposal of the property involved in a case though triable by a Court of Session, but he has rejected the application on the ground that S .457 in terms cannot apply since the matter is still under investigation. In support of the aforesaid finding, the Sessions Judge has placed reliance on the decision of the Andhra Pradesh High Court in the case of State v. Smt. Syad Belouis Sultana (1986) 1 Crimes 177.</p><p>3. The short question for consideration, therefore, is whether Section 487 of the Code can at all be attracted during the continuance of investigation and before filing of the charge-sheet or final form. Chapter XXXIV of the Code of Criminal Procedure deals with disposal of property. Section 451 contained therein deals with a situation when any property is produced in any criminal Court during any inquiry or trial and the court thinks it fit for passing appropriate order for proper custody of such property pending conclusion of the inquiry or trial. Section 452 deals with a situation where after conclusion of the trial, the Court can pass an order regarding disposal of the property in question. Section 457 is the only other section in the chapter dealing with disposal of property. For better appreciation of the point in issue, Section 457 of the Code is extracted hereunder in extenso:</p><p>457. Procedure by police upon seizures of property:</p><p>(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 property or the delivery of such property to the person entitled to the possession thereof, or if such person cannot be ascertained, respecting the custody and production of such property.</p><p>(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.</p><p>This section substantially corresponds to Section 523 of the Criminal Procedure Code, 1898. 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 any inquiry or trial, then the Magistrate gets jurisdiction under Section 487(1) to pass appropriate order for disposal of such property or for delivery of such property to ' the person entitled to the possession; thereof. If a literal meaning to the aforesaid provision is given, then though a property might have been seized by the police, yet until such seizure is reported to a Magistrate then the Magistrate will have no jurisdiction to pass any order under Section 457(1) of the Code. The learned Judge of the Andhra Pradesh High Court in deciding the case reported in (1986) 1 Crimes, 177, appears to have given the literal meaning to the words used in Section 457(1). But in my view such an interpretation would cause great injustice and there is no legislative intent behind giving the aforesaid interpretation. Placing of a report by the police before a Magistrate cannot be said to be a condition precedent for entertaining an application under Section 457. If the fact of seizure is brought to the notice of the Magistrate by any party interested or even, by a party who applies 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. In fact, this question has been lucidly discussed in the case of M. S. Jaggi v. Subase chandra Mohapatra (1977) 44 Cut LT 139 : 1977 Cri LJ 1902. After analysing the different provisions of the Code and considering Section 523 of the present Code, the learned Judge observed (at p. 1904):.Even though there be no provision in the Code obligating the police to report its seizure, nevertheless, if the factum of seizure is reported to the Magistrate by sources other than the police or the fact o f seizure otherwise comes to the knowledge of the Magistrate, he acquires jurisdiction under this section to pass appropriate orders in respect of the seized property. As in this case the factum of seizure was reported to him by the opposite party filing an application under Section 457, the Magistrate acquired jurisdiction to pass appropriate orders as he thought fit respecting the disposal of the seized property.</p><p>In this view of the matter, the order of the learned Sessions Judge cannot be sustained and I would hold that the Magistrate had jurisdiction under Section 457 of the Code to pass appropriate order regarding release of the property and giving custody of the same.</p><p>4. The next question for consideration would be as to on what terms the custody of the vehicle should be given to the petitioner who is admittedly the owner of the vehicle. This is a matter over which the Magistrate has not exercised his discretion since he illegally rejected the application as not being entertainable. Consequently, I think it appropriate to hold that the Magistrate should now consider the application filed by the petitioner and release the vehicle to the custody of the petitioner on such terms as he thinks fit in the facts and circumstances of the case.</p><p>5. This Criminal Miscellaneous Application is accordingly allowed with the aforesaid direction and the petitioner may now appear before the learned Magistrate whereafter the Magistrate on hearing the petitioner would pass appropriate orders with regard to the terms for the release of the vehicle in favour of the petitioner.<p></p><p>',
		'observations' => null,
		'overruledby' => null,
		'prhistory' => '',
		'pubs' => '66(1988)CLT816; 1989CriLJ1025',
		'ratiodecidendi' => '',
		'respondent' => 'State of Orissa',
		'sub' => 'Criminal',
		'link' => null,
		'circuit' => null
	)
)
$casename_url = 'krushna-charan-mohanty-vs-state-orissa'
$args = array(
	(int) 0 => '531760',
	(int) 1 => 'krushna-charan-mohanty-vs-state-orissa'
)
$url = 'https://sooperkanoon.com/case/amp/531760/krushna-charan-mohanty-vs-state-orissa'
$ctype = ' High Court'
$caseref = 'M. S. Jaggi v. Subase<br>'
$content = array(
	(int) 0 => 'ORDER<p>G.B. Patnaik, J.',
	(int) 1 => '<p>1. This application has been filed invoking the jurisdiction of this Court under Section 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, as the petitioner's application for release of the motor vehicle was rejected by the learned Magistrate and on revision, the said order of rejection has been affirmed,',
	(int) 2 => '<p>2. In connection with G.R. Case No. 232 of 1988 under Sections 436/323/427/379, Penal Code, a truck bearing registration under ORL 537 was seized by the Investigating Officer on 22-7-1988. The petitioner is admittedly the owner of the said truck. After the seizure, the petitioner filed an application invoking the jurisdiction of the Magistrate under Section 457 of the Code of Criminal Procedure for getting custody of the vehicle. The learned Magistrate rejected the said application solely on the ground that the case being one triable by Court of Session, he had no jurisdiction to deal with the application. The petitioner, therefore, carried a revision to the Court of Session. The learned Sessions Judge came to the conclusion that the Magistrate was in error to hold that in a case triable by Court of Session, the Magistrate has no jurisdiction under Section 457 for release of the seized property. In fact, the learned Sessions Judge has held that Section 457 of the Code does not put any embargo on a Magistrate to pass any order regarding disposal of the property involved in a case though triable by a Court of Session, but he has rejected the application on the ground that S .457 in terms cannot apply since the matter is still under investigation. In support of the aforesaid finding, the Sessions Judge has placed reliance on the decision of the Andhra Pradesh High Court in the case of State v. Smt. Syad Belouis Sultana (1986) 1 Crimes 177.',
	(int) 3 => '<p>3. The short question for consideration, therefore, is whether Section 487 of the Code can at all be attracted during the continuance of investigation and before filing of the charge-sheet or final form. Chapter XXXIV of the Code of Criminal Procedure deals with disposal of property. Section 451 contained therein deals with a situation when any property is produced in any criminal Court during any inquiry or trial and the court thinks it fit for passing appropriate order for proper custody of such property pending conclusion of the inquiry or trial. Section 452 deals with a situation where after conclusion of the trial, the Court can pass an order regarding disposal of the property in question. Section 457 is the only other section in the chapter dealing with disposal of property. For better appreciation of the point in issue, Section 457 of the Code is extracted hereunder in extenso:',
	(int) 4 => '<p>457. Procedure by police upon seizures of property:',
	(int) 5 => '<p>(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 property or the delivery of such property to the person entitled to the possession thereof, or if such person cannot be ascertained, respecting the custody and production of such property.',
	(int) 6 => '<p>(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.',
	(int) 7 => '<p>This section substantially corresponds to Section 523 of the Criminal Procedure Code, 1898. 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 any inquiry or trial, then the Magistrate gets jurisdiction under Section 487(1) to pass appropriate order for disposal of such property or for delivery of such property to ' the person entitled to the possession; thereof. If a literal meaning to the aforesaid provision is given, then though a property might have been seized by the police, yet until such seizure is reported to a Magistrate then the Magistrate will have no jurisdiction to pass any order under Section 457(1) of the Code. The learned Judge of the Andhra Pradesh High Court in deciding the case reported in (1986) 1 Crimes, 177, appears to have given the literal meaning to the words used in Section 457(1). But in my view such an interpretation would cause great injustice and there is no legislative intent behind giving the aforesaid interpretation. Placing of a report by the police before a Magistrate cannot be said to be a condition precedent for entertaining an application under Section 457. If the fact of seizure is brought to the notice of the Magistrate by any party interested or even, by a party who applies 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. In fact, this question has been lucidly discussed in the case of M. S. Jaggi v. Subase chandra Mohapatra (1977) 44 Cut LT 139 : 1977 Cri LJ 1902. After analysing the different provisions of the Code and considering Section 523 of the present Code, the learned Judge observed (at p. 1904):.Even though there be no provision in the Code obligating the police to report its seizure, nevertheless, if the factum of seizure is reported to the Magistrate by sources other than the police or the fact o f seizure otherwise comes to the knowledge of the Magistrate, he acquires jurisdiction under this section to pass appropriate orders in respect of the seized property. As in this case the factum of seizure was reported to him by the opposite party filing an application under Section 457, the Magistrate acquired jurisdiction to pass appropriate orders as he thought fit respecting the disposal of the seized property.',
	(int) 8 => '<p>In this view of the matter, the order of the learned Sessions Judge cannot be sustained and I would hold that the Magistrate had jurisdiction under Section 457 of the Code to pass appropriate order regarding release of the property and giving custody of the same.',
	(int) 9 => '<p>4. The next question for consideration would be as to on what terms the custody of the vehicle should be given to the petitioner who is admittedly the owner of the vehicle. This is a matter over which the Magistrate has not exercised his discretion since he illegally rejected the application as not being entertainable. Consequently, I think it appropriate to hold that the Magistrate should now consider the application filed by the petitioner and release the vehicle to the custody of the petitioner on such terms as he thinks fit in the facts and circumstances of the case.',
	(int) 10 => '<p>5. This Criminal Miscellaneous Application is accordingly allowed with the aforesaid direction and the petitioner may now appear before the learned Magistrate whereafter the Magistrate on hearing the petitioner would pass appropriate orders with regard to the terms for the release of the vehicle in favour of the petitioner.<p>',
	(int) 11 => '<p>'
)
$paragraphAfter = (int) 1
$cnt = (int) 12
$i = (int) 0
include - APP/View/Case/amp.ctp, line 144
View::_evaluate() - CORE/Cake/View/View.php, line 971
View::_render() - CORE/Cake/View/View.php, line 933
View::render() - CORE/Cake/View/View.php, line 473
Controller::render() - CORE/Cake/Controller/Controller.php, line 963
Dispatcher::_invoke() - CORE/Cake/Routing/Dispatcher.php, line 200
Dispatcher::dispatch() - CORE/Cake/Routing/Dispatcher.php, line 167
[main] - APP/webroot/index.php, line 109

ORDER

G.B. Patnaik, J.

Notice (8): Undefined variable: query [APP/View/Case/amp.ctp, line 144]
Code Context
                                         echo $this->Adsense->display('responsive_rect'); 

                                        }

                                        echo html_entity_decode($this->Wand->highlight($content[$i], $query));
$viewFile = '/home/legalcrystal/app/View/Case/amp.ctp'
$dataForView = array(
	'title_for_layout' => 'Krushna Charan Mohanty Vs State of Orissa - Citation 531760 - Court Judgment | ',
	'desc' => array(
		'Judgement' => array(
			'id' => '531760',
			'acts' => '',
			'appealno' => '',
			'appellant' => 'Krushna Charan Mohanty',
			'authreffered' => '',
			'casename' => 'Krushna Charan Mohanty Vs. State of Orissa',
			'casenote' => ' - LABOUR & SERVICES 
Pay Scale:[Tarun Chatterjee & R.M. Lodha,JJ] Fixation - Orissa Service Code (1939), Rule 74(b)  Promotion - Government servant, by virtue of Rule 74(b), gets higher pay than what he was getting immediately before his promotion - Circular Dated 19.3.1983 modifying earlier Circular Dated 18.6.1982 resulting in  reduction of pay of employee on promotion  Held, It is not legal. Statutory Rules cannot be altered or amended by such Executive orders or Circulars or Instructions nor can they replace Statutory Rules.
 -  For better appreciation of the point in issue, Section 457 of the Code is extracted hereunder in extenso:',
			'caseanalysis' => null,
			'casesref' => 'M. S. Jaggi v. Subase;',
			'citingcases' => '',
			'counselplain' => '',
			'counseldef' => '',
			'court' => 'Orissa',
			'court_type' => 'HC',
			'decidedon' => '1988-09-12',
			'deposition' => '',
			'favorof' => null,
			'findings' => null,
			'judge' => 'G.B. Patnaik, J.',
			'judgement' => 'ORDER<p style="text-align: justify;">G.B. Patnaik, J.</p><p style="text-align: justify;">1. This application has been filed invoking the jurisdiction of this Court under Section 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, as the petitioner's application for release of the motor vehicle was rejected by the learned Magistrate and on revision, the said order of rejection has been affirmed,</p><p style="text-align: justify;">2. In connection with G.R. Case No. 232 of 1988 under Sections 436/323/427/379, Penal Code, a truck bearing registration under ORL 537 was seized by the Investigating Officer on 22-7-1988. The petitioner is admittedly the owner of the said truck. After the seizure, the petitioner filed an application invoking the jurisdiction of the Magistrate under Section 457 of the Code of Criminal Procedure for getting custody of the vehicle. The learned Magistrate rejected the said application solely on the ground that the case being one triable by Court of Session, he had no jurisdiction to deal with the application. The petitioner, therefore, carried a revision to the Court of Session. The learned Sessions Judge came to the conclusion that the Magistrate was in error to hold that in a case triable by Court of Session, the Magistrate has no jurisdiction under Section 457 for release of the seized property. In fact, the learned Sessions Judge has held that Section 457 of the Code does not put any embargo on a Magistrate to pass any order regarding disposal of the property involved in a case though triable by a Court of Session, but he has rejected the application on the ground that S .457 in terms cannot apply since the matter is still under investigation. In support of the aforesaid finding, the Sessions Judge has placed reliance on the decision of the Andhra Pradesh High Court in the case of State v. Smt. Syad Belouis Sultana (1986) 1 Crimes 177.</p><p style="text-align: justify;">3. The short question for consideration, therefore, is whether Section 487 of the Code can at all be attracted during the continuance of investigation and before filing of the charge-sheet or final form. Chapter XXXIV of the Code of Criminal Procedure deals with disposal of property. Section 451 contained therein deals with a situation when any property is produced in any criminal Court during any inquiry or trial and the court thinks it fit for passing appropriate order for proper custody of such property pending conclusion of the inquiry or trial. Section 452 deals with a situation where after conclusion of the trial, the Court can pass an order regarding disposal of the property in question. Section 457 is the only other section in the chapter dealing with disposal of property. For better appreciation of the point in issue, Section 457 of the Code is extracted hereunder in extenso:</p><p style="text-align: justify;">457. Procedure by police upon seizures of property:</p><p style="text-align: justify;">(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 property or the delivery of such property to the person entitled to the possession thereof, or if such person cannot be ascertained, respecting the custody and production of such property.</p><p style="text-align: justify;">(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.</p><p style="text-align: justify;">This section substantially corresponds to Section 523 of the Criminal Procedure Code, 1898. 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 any inquiry or trial, then the Magistrate gets jurisdiction under Section 487(1) to pass appropriate order for disposal of such property or for delivery of such property to ' the person entitled to the possession; thereof. If a literal meaning to the aforesaid provision is given, then though a property might have been seized by the police, yet until such seizure is reported to a Magistrate then the Magistrate will have no jurisdiction to pass any order under Section 457(1) of the Code. The learned Judge of the Andhra Pradesh High Court in deciding the case reported in (1986) 1 Crimes, 177, appears to have given the literal meaning to the words used in Section 457(1). But in my view such an interpretation would cause great injustice and there is no legislative intent behind giving the aforesaid interpretation. Placing of a report by the police before a Magistrate cannot be said to be a condition precedent for entertaining an application under Section 457. If the fact of seizure is brought to the notice of the Magistrate by any party interested or even, by a party who applies 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. In fact, this question has been lucidly discussed in the case of M. S. Jaggi v. Subase chandra Mohapatra (1977) 44 Cut LT 139 : 1977 Cri LJ 1902. After analysing the different provisions of the Code and considering Section 523 of the present Code, the learned Judge observed (at p. 1904):.Even though there be no provision in the Code obligating the police to report its seizure, nevertheless, if the factum of seizure is reported to the Magistrate by sources other than the police or the fact o f seizure otherwise comes to the knowledge of the Magistrate, he acquires jurisdiction under this section to pass appropriate orders in respect of the seized property. As in this case the factum of seizure was reported to him by the opposite party filing an application under Section 457, the Magistrate acquired jurisdiction to pass appropriate orders as he thought fit respecting the disposal of the seized property.</p><p style="text-align: justify;">In this view of the matter, the order of the learned Sessions Judge cannot be sustained and I would hold that the Magistrate had jurisdiction under Section 457 of the Code to pass appropriate order regarding release of the property and giving custody of the same.</p><p style="text-align: justify;">4. The next question for consideration would be as to on what terms the custody of the vehicle should be given to the petitioner who is admittedly the owner of the vehicle. This is a matter over which the Magistrate has not exercised his discretion since he illegally rejected the application as not being entertainable. Consequently, I think it appropriate to hold that the Magistrate should now consider the application filed by the petitioner and release the vehicle to the custody of the petitioner on such terms as he thinks fit in the facts and circumstances of the case.</p><p style="text-align: justify;">5. This Criminal Miscellaneous Application is accordingly allowed with the aforesaid direction and the petitioner may now appear before the learned Magistrate whereafter the Magistrate on hearing the petitioner would pass appropriate orders with regard to the terms for the release of the vehicle in favour of the petitioner.<p style="text-align: justify;"></p><p style="text-align: justify;">',
			'observations' => null,
			'overruledby' => null,
			'prhistory' => '',
			'pubs' => '66(1988)CLT816; 1989CriLJ1025',
			'ratiodecidendi' => '',
			'respondent' => 'State of Orissa',
			'sub' => 'Criminal',
			'link' => null,
			'circuit' => null
		)
	),
	'casename_url' => 'krushna-charan-mohanty-vs-state-orissa',
	'args' => array(
		(int) 0 => '531760',
		(int) 1 => 'krushna-charan-mohanty-vs-state-orissa'
	)
)
$title_for_layout = 'Krushna Charan Mohanty Vs State of Orissa - Citation 531760 - Court Judgment | '
$desc = array(
	'Judgement' => array(
		'id' => '531760',
		'acts' => '',
		'appealno' => '',
		'appellant' => 'Krushna Charan Mohanty',
		'authreffered' => '',
		'casename' => 'Krushna Charan Mohanty Vs. State of Orissa',
		'casenote' => ' - LABOUR & SERVICES 
Pay Scale:[Tarun Chatterjee & R.M. Lodha,JJ] Fixation - Orissa Service Code (1939), Rule 74(b)  Promotion - Government servant, by virtue of Rule 74(b), gets higher pay than what he was getting immediately before his promotion - Circular Dated 19.3.1983 modifying earlier Circular Dated 18.6.1982 resulting in  reduction of pay of employee on promotion  Held, It is not legal. Statutory Rules cannot be altered or amended by such Executive orders or Circulars or Instructions nor can they replace Statutory Rules.
 -  For better appreciation of the point in issue, Section 457 of the Code is extracted hereunder in extenso:',
		'caseanalysis' => null,
		'casesref' => 'M. S. Jaggi v. Subase;',
		'citingcases' => '',
		'counselplain' => '',
		'counseldef' => '',
		'court' => 'Orissa',
		'court_type' => 'HC',
		'decidedon' => '1988-09-12',
		'deposition' => '',
		'favorof' => null,
		'findings' => null,
		'judge' => 'G.B. Patnaik, J.',
		'judgement' => 'ORDER<p>G.B. Patnaik, J.</p><p>1. This application has been filed invoking the jurisdiction of this Court under Section 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, as the petitioner's application for release of the motor vehicle was rejected by the learned Magistrate and on revision, the said order of rejection has been affirmed,</p><p>2. In connection with G.R. Case No. 232 of 1988 under Sections 436/323/427/379, Penal Code, a truck bearing registration under ORL 537 was seized by the Investigating Officer on 22-7-1988. The petitioner is admittedly the owner of the said truck. After the seizure, the petitioner filed an application invoking the jurisdiction of the Magistrate under Section 457 of the Code of Criminal Procedure for getting custody of the vehicle. The learned Magistrate rejected the said application solely on the ground that the case being one triable by Court of Session, he had no jurisdiction to deal with the application. The petitioner, therefore, carried a revision to the Court of Session. The learned Sessions Judge came to the conclusion that the Magistrate was in error to hold that in a case triable by Court of Session, the Magistrate has no jurisdiction under Section 457 for release of the seized property. In fact, the learned Sessions Judge has held that Section 457 of the Code does not put any embargo on a Magistrate to pass any order regarding disposal of the property involved in a case though triable by a Court of Session, but he has rejected the application on the ground that S .457 in terms cannot apply since the matter is still under investigation. In support of the aforesaid finding, the Sessions Judge has placed reliance on the decision of the Andhra Pradesh High Court in the case of State v. Smt. Syad Belouis Sultana (1986) 1 Crimes 177.</p><p>3. The short question for consideration, therefore, is whether Section 487 of the Code can at all be attracted during the continuance of investigation and before filing of the charge-sheet or final form. Chapter XXXIV of the Code of Criminal Procedure deals with disposal of property. Section 451 contained therein deals with a situation when any property is produced in any criminal Court during any inquiry or trial and the court thinks it fit for passing appropriate order for proper custody of such property pending conclusion of the inquiry or trial. Section 452 deals with a situation where after conclusion of the trial, the Court can pass an order regarding disposal of the property in question. Section 457 is the only other section in the chapter dealing with disposal of property. For better appreciation of the point in issue, Section 457 of the Code is extracted hereunder in extenso:</p><p>457. Procedure by police upon seizures of property:</p><p>(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 property or the delivery of such property to the person entitled to the possession thereof, or if such person cannot be ascertained, respecting the custody and production of such property.</p><p>(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.</p><p>This section substantially corresponds to Section 523 of the Criminal Procedure Code, 1898. 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 any inquiry or trial, then the Magistrate gets jurisdiction under Section 487(1) to pass appropriate order for disposal of such property or for delivery of such property to ' the person entitled to the possession; thereof. If a literal meaning to the aforesaid provision is given, then though a property might have been seized by the police, yet until such seizure is reported to a Magistrate then the Magistrate will have no jurisdiction to pass any order under Section 457(1) of the Code. The learned Judge of the Andhra Pradesh High Court in deciding the case reported in (1986) 1 Crimes, 177, appears to have given the literal meaning to the words used in Section 457(1). But in my view such an interpretation would cause great injustice and there is no legislative intent behind giving the aforesaid interpretation. Placing of a report by the police before a Magistrate cannot be said to be a condition precedent for entertaining an application under Section 457. If the fact of seizure is brought to the notice of the Magistrate by any party interested or even, by a party who applies 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. In fact, this question has been lucidly discussed in the case of M. S. Jaggi v. Subase chandra Mohapatra (1977) 44 Cut LT 139 : 1977 Cri LJ 1902. After analysing the different provisions of the Code and considering Section 523 of the present Code, the learned Judge observed (at p. 1904):.Even though there be no provision in the Code obligating the police to report its seizure, nevertheless, if the factum of seizure is reported to the Magistrate by sources other than the police or the fact o f seizure otherwise comes to the knowledge of the Magistrate, he acquires jurisdiction under this section to pass appropriate orders in respect of the seized property. As in this case the factum of seizure was reported to him by the opposite party filing an application under Section 457, the Magistrate acquired jurisdiction to pass appropriate orders as he thought fit respecting the disposal of the seized property.</p><p>In this view of the matter, the order of the learned Sessions Judge cannot be sustained and I would hold that the Magistrate had jurisdiction under Section 457 of the Code to pass appropriate order regarding release of the property and giving custody of the same.</p><p>4. The next question for consideration would be as to on what terms the custody of the vehicle should be given to the petitioner who is admittedly the owner of the vehicle. This is a matter over which the Magistrate has not exercised his discretion since he illegally rejected the application as not being entertainable. Consequently, I think it appropriate to hold that the Magistrate should now consider the application filed by the petitioner and release the vehicle to the custody of the petitioner on such terms as he thinks fit in the facts and circumstances of the case.</p><p>5. This Criminal Miscellaneous Application is accordingly allowed with the aforesaid direction and the petitioner may now appear before the learned Magistrate whereafter the Magistrate on hearing the petitioner would pass appropriate orders with regard to the terms for the release of the vehicle in favour of the petitioner.<p></p><p>',
		'observations' => null,
		'overruledby' => null,
		'prhistory' => '',
		'pubs' => '66(1988)CLT816; 1989CriLJ1025',
		'ratiodecidendi' => '',
		'respondent' => 'State of Orissa',
		'sub' => 'Criminal',
		'link' => null,
		'circuit' => null
	)
)
$casename_url = 'krushna-charan-mohanty-vs-state-orissa'
$args = array(
	(int) 0 => '531760',
	(int) 1 => 'krushna-charan-mohanty-vs-state-orissa'
)
$url = 'https://sooperkanoon.com/case/amp/531760/krushna-charan-mohanty-vs-state-orissa'
$ctype = ' High Court'
$caseref = 'M. S. Jaggi v. Subase<br>'
$content = array(
	(int) 0 => 'ORDER<p>G.B. Patnaik, J.',
	(int) 1 => '<p>1. This application has been filed invoking the jurisdiction of this Court under Section 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, as the petitioner's application for release of the motor vehicle was rejected by the learned Magistrate and on revision, the said order of rejection has been affirmed,',
	(int) 2 => '<p>2. In connection with G.R. Case No. 232 of 1988 under Sections 436/323/427/379, Penal Code, a truck bearing registration under ORL 537 was seized by the Investigating Officer on 22-7-1988. The petitioner is admittedly the owner of the said truck. After the seizure, the petitioner filed an application invoking the jurisdiction of the Magistrate under Section 457 of the Code of Criminal Procedure for getting custody of the vehicle. The learned Magistrate rejected the said application solely on the ground that the case being one triable by Court of Session, he had no jurisdiction to deal with the application. The petitioner, therefore, carried a revision to the Court of Session. The learned Sessions Judge came to the conclusion that the Magistrate was in error to hold that in a case triable by Court of Session, the Magistrate has no jurisdiction under Section 457 for release of the seized property. In fact, the learned Sessions Judge has held that Section 457 of the Code does not put any embargo on a Magistrate to pass any order regarding disposal of the property involved in a case though triable by a Court of Session, but he has rejected the application on the ground that S .457 in terms cannot apply since the matter is still under investigation. In support of the aforesaid finding, the Sessions Judge has placed reliance on the decision of the Andhra Pradesh High Court in the case of State v. Smt. Syad Belouis Sultana (1986) 1 Crimes 177.',
	(int) 3 => '<p>3. The short question for consideration, therefore, is whether Section 487 of the Code can at all be attracted during the continuance of investigation and before filing of the charge-sheet or final form. Chapter XXXIV of the Code of Criminal Procedure deals with disposal of property. Section 451 contained therein deals with a situation when any property is produced in any criminal Court during any inquiry or trial and the court thinks it fit for passing appropriate order for proper custody of such property pending conclusion of the inquiry or trial. Section 452 deals with a situation where after conclusion of the trial, the Court can pass an order regarding disposal of the property in question. Section 457 is the only other section in the chapter dealing with disposal of property. For better appreciation of the point in issue, Section 457 of the Code is extracted hereunder in extenso:',
	(int) 4 => '<p>457. Procedure by police upon seizures of property:',
	(int) 5 => '<p>(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 property or the delivery of such property to the person entitled to the possession thereof, or if such person cannot be ascertained, respecting the custody and production of such property.',
	(int) 6 => '<p>(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.',
	(int) 7 => '<p>This section substantially corresponds to Section 523 of the Criminal Procedure Code, 1898. 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 any inquiry or trial, then the Magistrate gets jurisdiction under Section 487(1) to pass appropriate order for disposal of such property or for delivery of such property to ' the person entitled to the possession; thereof. If a literal meaning to the aforesaid provision is given, then though a property might have been seized by the police, yet until such seizure is reported to a Magistrate then the Magistrate will have no jurisdiction to pass any order under Section 457(1) of the Code. The learned Judge of the Andhra Pradesh High Court in deciding the case reported in (1986) 1 Crimes, 177, appears to have given the literal meaning to the words used in Section 457(1). But in my view such an interpretation would cause great injustice and there is no legislative intent behind giving the aforesaid interpretation. Placing of a report by the police before a Magistrate cannot be said to be a condition precedent for entertaining an application under Section 457. If the fact of seizure is brought to the notice of the Magistrate by any party interested or even, by a party who applies 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. In fact, this question has been lucidly discussed in the case of M. S. Jaggi v. Subase chandra Mohapatra (1977) 44 Cut LT 139 : 1977 Cri LJ 1902. After analysing the different provisions of the Code and considering Section 523 of the present Code, the learned Judge observed (at p. 1904):.Even though there be no provision in the Code obligating the police to report its seizure, nevertheless, if the factum of seizure is reported to the Magistrate by sources other than the police or the fact o f seizure otherwise comes to the knowledge of the Magistrate, he acquires jurisdiction under this section to pass appropriate orders in respect of the seized property. As in this case the factum of seizure was reported to him by the opposite party filing an application under Section 457, the Magistrate acquired jurisdiction to pass appropriate orders as he thought fit respecting the disposal of the seized property.',
	(int) 8 => '<p>In this view of the matter, the order of the learned Sessions Judge cannot be sustained and I would hold that the Magistrate had jurisdiction under Section 457 of the Code to pass appropriate order regarding release of the property and giving custody of the same.',
	(int) 9 => '<p>4. The next question for consideration would be as to on what terms the custody of the vehicle should be given to the petitioner who is admittedly the owner of the vehicle. This is a matter over which the Magistrate has not exercised his discretion since he illegally rejected the application as not being entertainable. Consequently, I think it appropriate to hold that the Magistrate should now consider the application filed by the petitioner and release the vehicle to the custody of the petitioner on such terms as he thinks fit in the facts and circumstances of the case.',
	(int) 10 => '<p>5. This Criminal Miscellaneous Application is accordingly allowed with the aforesaid direction and the petitioner may now appear before the learned Magistrate whereafter the Magistrate on hearing the petitioner would pass appropriate orders with regard to the terms for the release of the vehicle in favour of the petitioner.<p>',
	(int) 11 => '<p>'
)
$paragraphAfter = (int) 1
$cnt = (int) 12
$i = (int) 1
include - APP/View/Case/amp.ctp, line 144
View::_evaluate() - CORE/Cake/View/View.php, line 971
View::_render() - CORE/Cake/View/View.php, line 933
View::render() - CORE/Cake/View/View.php, line 473
Controller::render() - CORE/Cake/Controller/Controller.php, line 963
Dispatcher::_invoke() - CORE/Cake/Routing/Dispatcher.php, line 200
Dispatcher::dispatch() - CORE/Cake/Routing/Dispatcher.php, line 167
[main] - APP/webroot/index.php, line 109

1. This application has been filed invoking the jurisdiction of this Court under Section 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, as the petitioner's application for release of the motor vehicle was rejected by the learned Magistrate and on revision, the said order of rejection has been affirmed,

Notice (8): Undefined variable: query [APP/View/Case/amp.ctp, line 144]
Code Context
                                         echo $this->Adsense->display('responsive_rect'); 

                                        }

                                        echo html_entity_decode($this->Wand->highlight($content[$i], $query));
$viewFile = '/home/legalcrystal/app/View/Case/amp.ctp'
$dataForView = array(
	'title_for_layout' => 'Krushna Charan Mohanty Vs State of Orissa - Citation 531760 - Court Judgment | ',
	'desc' => array(
		'Judgement' => array(
			'id' => '531760',
			'acts' => '',
			'appealno' => '',
			'appellant' => 'Krushna Charan Mohanty',
			'authreffered' => '',
			'casename' => 'Krushna Charan Mohanty Vs. State of Orissa',
			'casenote' => ' - LABOUR & SERVICES 
Pay Scale:[Tarun Chatterjee & R.M. Lodha,JJ] Fixation - Orissa Service Code (1939), Rule 74(b)  Promotion - Government servant, by virtue of Rule 74(b), gets higher pay than what he was getting immediately before his promotion - Circular Dated 19.3.1983 modifying earlier Circular Dated 18.6.1982 resulting in  reduction of pay of employee on promotion  Held, It is not legal. Statutory Rules cannot be altered or amended by such Executive orders or Circulars or Instructions nor can they replace Statutory Rules.
 -  For better appreciation of the point in issue, Section 457 of the Code is extracted hereunder in extenso:',
			'caseanalysis' => null,
			'casesref' => 'M. S. Jaggi v. Subase;',
			'citingcases' => '',
			'counselplain' => '',
			'counseldef' => '',
			'court' => 'Orissa',
			'court_type' => 'HC',
			'decidedon' => '1988-09-12',
			'deposition' => '',
			'favorof' => null,
			'findings' => null,
			'judge' => 'G.B. Patnaik, J.',
			'judgement' => 'ORDER<p style="text-align: justify;">G.B. Patnaik, J.</p><p style="text-align: justify;">1. This application has been filed invoking the jurisdiction of this Court under Section 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, as the petitioner's application for release of the motor vehicle was rejected by the learned Magistrate and on revision, the said order of rejection has been affirmed,</p><p style="text-align: justify;">2. In connection with G.R. Case No. 232 of 1988 under Sections 436/323/427/379, Penal Code, a truck bearing registration under ORL 537 was seized by the Investigating Officer on 22-7-1988. The petitioner is admittedly the owner of the said truck. After the seizure, the petitioner filed an application invoking the jurisdiction of the Magistrate under Section 457 of the Code of Criminal Procedure for getting custody of the vehicle. The learned Magistrate rejected the said application solely on the ground that the case being one triable by Court of Session, he had no jurisdiction to deal with the application. The petitioner, therefore, carried a revision to the Court of Session. The learned Sessions Judge came to the conclusion that the Magistrate was in error to hold that in a case triable by Court of Session, the Magistrate has no jurisdiction under Section 457 for release of the seized property. In fact, the learned Sessions Judge has held that Section 457 of the Code does not put any embargo on a Magistrate to pass any order regarding disposal of the property involved in a case though triable by a Court of Session, but he has rejected the application on the ground that S .457 in terms cannot apply since the matter is still under investigation. In support of the aforesaid finding, the Sessions Judge has placed reliance on the decision of the Andhra Pradesh High Court in the case of State v. Smt. Syad Belouis Sultana (1986) 1 Crimes 177.</p><p style="text-align: justify;">3. The short question for consideration, therefore, is whether Section 487 of the Code can at all be attracted during the continuance of investigation and before filing of the charge-sheet or final form. Chapter XXXIV of the Code of Criminal Procedure deals with disposal of property. Section 451 contained therein deals with a situation when any property is produced in any criminal Court during any inquiry or trial and the court thinks it fit for passing appropriate order for proper custody of such property pending conclusion of the inquiry or trial. Section 452 deals with a situation where after conclusion of the trial, the Court can pass an order regarding disposal of the property in question. Section 457 is the only other section in the chapter dealing with disposal of property. For better appreciation of the point in issue, Section 457 of the Code is extracted hereunder in extenso:</p><p style="text-align: justify;">457. Procedure by police upon seizures of property:</p><p style="text-align: justify;">(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 property or the delivery of such property to the person entitled to the possession thereof, or if such person cannot be ascertained, respecting the custody and production of such property.</p><p style="text-align: justify;">(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.</p><p style="text-align: justify;">This section substantially corresponds to Section 523 of the Criminal Procedure Code, 1898. 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 any inquiry or trial, then the Magistrate gets jurisdiction under Section 487(1) to pass appropriate order for disposal of such property or for delivery of such property to ' the person entitled to the possession; thereof. If a literal meaning to the aforesaid provision is given, then though a property might have been seized by the police, yet until such seizure is reported to a Magistrate then the Magistrate will have no jurisdiction to pass any order under Section 457(1) of the Code. The learned Judge of the Andhra Pradesh High Court in deciding the case reported in (1986) 1 Crimes, 177, appears to have given the literal meaning to the words used in Section 457(1). But in my view such an interpretation would cause great injustice and there is no legislative intent behind giving the aforesaid interpretation. Placing of a report by the police before a Magistrate cannot be said to be a condition precedent for entertaining an application under Section 457. If the fact of seizure is brought to the notice of the Magistrate by any party interested or even, by a party who applies 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. In fact, this question has been lucidly discussed in the case of M. S. Jaggi v. Subase chandra Mohapatra (1977) 44 Cut LT 139 : 1977 Cri LJ 1902. After analysing the different provisions of the Code and considering Section 523 of the present Code, the learned Judge observed (at p. 1904):.Even though there be no provision in the Code obligating the police to report its seizure, nevertheless, if the factum of seizure is reported to the Magistrate by sources other than the police or the fact o f seizure otherwise comes to the knowledge of the Magistrate, he acquires jurisdiction under this section to pass appropriate orders in respect of the seized property. As in this case the factum of seizure was reported to him by the opposite party filing an application under Section 457, the Magistrate acquired jurisdiction to pass appropriate orders as he thought fit respecting the disposal of the seized property.</p><p style="text-align: justify;">In this view of the matter, the order of the learned Sessions Judge cannot be sustained and I would hold that the Magistrate had jurisdiction under Section 457 of the Code to pass appropriate order regarding release of the property and giving custody of the same.</p><p style="text-align: justify;">4. The next question for consideration would be as to on what terms the custody of the vehicle should be given to the petitioner who is admittedly the owner of the vehicle. This is a matter over which the Magistrate has not exercised his discretion since he illegally rejected the application as not being entertainable. Consequently, I think it appropriate to hold that the Magistrate should now consider the application filed by the petitioner and release the vehicle to the custody of the petitioner on such terms as he thinks fit in the facts and circumstances of the case.</p><p style="text-align: justify;">5. This Criminal Miscellaneous Application is accordingly allowed with the aforesaid direction and the petitioner may now appear before the learned Magistrate whereafter the Magistrate on hearing the petitioner would pass appropriate orders with regard to the terms for the release of the vehicle in favour of the petitioner.<p style="text-align: justify;"></p><p style="text-align: justify;">',
			'observations' => null,
			'overruledby' => null,
			'prhistory' => '',
			'pubs' => '66(1988)CLT816; 1989CriLJ1025',
			'ratiodecidendi' => '',
			'respondent' => 'State of Orissa',
			'sub' => 'Criminal',
			'link' => null,
			'circuit' => null
		)
	),
	'casename_url' => 'krushna-charan-mohanty-vs-state-orissa',
	'args' => array(
		(int) 0 => '531760',
		(int) 1 => 'krushna-charan-mohanty-vs-state-orissa'
	)
)
$title_for_layout = 'Krushna Charan Mohanty Vs State of Orissa - Citation 531760 - Court Judgment | '
$desc = array(
	'Judgement' => array(
		'id' => '531760',
		'acts' => '',
		'appealno' => '',
		'appellant' => 'Krushna Charan Mohanty',
		'authreffered' => '',
		'casename' => 'Krushna Charan Mohanty Vs. State of Orissa',
		'casenote' => ' - LABOUR & SERVICES 
Pay Scale:[Tarun Chatterjee & R.M. Lodha,JJ] Fixation - Orissa Service Code (1939), Rule 74(b)  Promotion - Government servant, by virtue of Rule 74(b), gets higher pay than what he was getting immediately before his promotion - Circular Dated 19.3.1983 modifying earlier Circular Dated 18.6.1982 resulting in  reduction of pay of employee on promotion  Held, It is not legal. Statutory Rules cannot be altered or amended by such Executive orders or Circulars or Instructions nor can they replace Statutory Rules.
 -  For better appreciation of the point in issue, Section 457 of the Code is extracted hereunder in extenso:',
		'caseanalysis' => null,
		'casesref' => 'M. S. Jaggi v. Subase;',
		'citingcases' => '',
		'counselplain' => '',
		'counseldef' => '',
		'court' => 'Orissa',
		'court_type' => 'HC',
		'decidedon' => '1988-09-12',
		'deposition' => '',
		'favorof' => null,
		'findings' => null,
		'judge' => 'G.B. Patnaik, J.',
		'judgement' => 'ORDER<p>G.B. Patnaik, J.</p><p>1. This application has been filed invoking the jurisdiction of this Court under Section 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, as the petitioner's application for release of the motor vehicle was rejected by the learned Magistrate and on revision, the said order of rejection has been affirmed,</p><p>2. In connection with G.R. Case No. 232 of 1988 under Sections 436/323/427/379, Penal Code, a truck bearing registration under ORL 537 was seized by the Investigating Officer on 22-7-1988. The petitioner is admittedly the owner of the said truck. After the seizure, the petitioner filed an application invoking the jurisdiction of the Magistrate under Section 457 of the Code of Criminal Procedure for getting custody of the vehicle. The learned Magistrate rejected the said application solely on the ground that the case being one triable by Court of Session, he had no jurisdiction to deal with the application. The petitioner, therefore, carried a revision to the Court of Session. The learned Sessions Judge came to the conclusion that the Magistrate was in error to hold that in a case triable by Court of Session, the Magistrate has no jurisdiction under Section 457 for release of the seized property. In fact, the learned Sessions Judge has held that Section 457 of the Code does not put any embargo on a Magistrate to pass any order regarding disposal of the property involved in a case though triable by a Court of Session, but he has rejected the application on the ground that S .457 in terms cannot apply since the matter is still under investigation. In support of the aforesaid finding, the Sessions Judge has placed reliance on the decision of the Andhra Pradesh High Court in the case of State v. Smt. Syad Belouis Sultana (1986) 1 Crimes 177.</p><p>3. The short question for consideration, therefore, is whether Section 487 of the Code can at all be attracted during the continuance of investigation and before filing of the charge-sheet or final form. Chapter XXXIV of the Code of Criminal Procedure deals with disposal of property. Section 451 contained therein deals with a situation when any property is produced in any criminal Court during any inquiry or trial and the court thinks it fit for passing appropriate order for proper custody of such property pending conclusion of the inquiry or trial. Section 452 deals with a situation where after conclusion of the trial, the Court can pass an order regarding disposal of the property in question. Section 457 is the only other section in the chapter dealing with disposal of property. For better appreciation of the point in issue, Section 457 of the Code is extracted hereunder in extenso:</p><p>457. Procedure by police upon seizures of property:</p><p>(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 property or the delivery of such property to the person entitled to the possession thereof, or if such person cannot be ascertained, respecting the custody and production of such property.</p><p>(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.</p><p>This section substantially corresponds to Section 523 of the Criminal Procedure Code, 1898. 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 any inquiry or trial, then the Magistrate gets jurisdiction under Section 487(1) to pass appropriate order for disposal of such property or for delivery of such property to ' the person entitled to the possession; thereof. If a literal meaning to the aforesaid provision is given, then though a property might have been seized by the police, yet until such seizure is reported to a Magistrate then the Magistrate will have no jurisdiction to pass any order under Section 457(1) of the Code. The learned Judge of the Andhra Pradesh High Court in deciding the case reported in (1986) 1 Crimes, 177, appears to have given the literal meaning to the words used in Section 457(1). But in my view such an interpretation would cause great injustice and there is no legislative intent behind giving the aforesaid interpretation. Placing of a report by the police before a Magistrate cannot be said to be a condition precedent for entertaining an application under Section 457. If the fact of seizure is brought to the notice of the Magistrate by any party interested or even, by a party who applies 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. In fact, this question has been lucidly discussed in the case of M. S. Jaggi v. Subase chandra Mohapatra (1977) 44 Cut LT 139 : 1977 Cri LJ 1902. After analysing the different provisions of the Code and considering Section 523 of the present Code, the learned Judge observed (at p. 1904):.Even though there be no provision in the Code obligating the police to report its seizure, nevertheless, if the factum of seizure is reported to the Magistrate by sources other than the police or the fact o f seizure otherwise comes to the knowledge of the Magistrate, he acquires jurisdiction under this section to pass appropriate orders in respect of the seized property. As in this case the factum of seizure was reported to him by the opposite party filing an application under Section 457, the Magistrate acquired jurisdiction to pass appropriate orders as he thought fit respecting the disposal of the seized property.</p><p>In this view of the matter, the order of the learned Sessions Judge cannot be sustained and I would hold that the Magistrate had jurisdiction under Section 457 of the Code to pass appropriate order regarding release of the property and giving custody of the same.</p><p>4. The next question for consideration would be as to on what terms the custody of the vehicle should be given to the petitioner who is admittedly the owner of the vehicle. This is a matter over which the Magistrate has not exercised his discretion since he illegally rejected the application as not being entertainable. Consequently, I think it appropriate to hold that the Magistrate should now consider the application filed by the petitioner and release the vehicle to the custody of the petitioner on such terms as he thinks fit in the facts and circumstances of the case.</p><p>5. This Criminal Miscellaneous Application is accordingly allowed with the aforesaid direction and the petitioner may now appear before the learned Magistrate whereafter the Magistrate on hearing the petitioner would pass appropriate orders with regard to the terms for the release of the vehicle in favour of the petitioner.<p></p><p>',
		'observations' => null,
		'overruledby' => null,
		'prhistory' => '',
		'pubs' => '66(1988)CLT816; 1989CriLJ1025',
		'ratiodecidendi' => '',
		'respondent' => 'State of Orissa',
		'sub' => 'Criminal',
		'link' => null,
		'circuit' => null
	)
)
$casename_url = 'krushna-charan-mohanty-vs-state-orissa'
$args = array(
	(int) 0 => '531760',
	(int) 1 => 'krushna-charan-mohanty-vs-state-orissa'
)
$url = 'https://sooperkanoon.com/case/amp/531760/krushna-charan-mohanty-vs-state-orissa'
$ctype = ' High Court'
$caseref = 'M. S. Jaggi v. Subase<br>'
$content = array(
	(int) 0 => 'ORDER<p>G.B. Patnaik, J.',
	(int) 1 => '<p>1. This application has been filed invoking the jurisdiction of this Court under Section 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, as the petitioner's application for release of the motor vehicle was rejected by the learned Magistrate and on revision, the said order of rejection has been affirmed,',
	(int) 2 => '<p>2. In connection with G.R. Case No. 232 of 1988 under Sections 436/323/427/379, Penal Code, a truck bearing registration under ORL 537 was seized by the Investigating Officer on 22-7-1988. The petitioner is admittedly the owner of the said truck. After the seizure, the petitioner filed an application invoking the jurisdiction of the Magistrate under Section 457 of the Code of Criminal Procedure for getting custody of the vehicle. The learned Magistrate rejected the said application solely on the ground that the case being one triable by Court of Session, he had no jurisdiction to deal with the application. The petitioner, therefore, carried a revision to the Court of Session. The learned Sessions Judge came to the conclusion that the Magistrate was in error to hold that in a case triable by Court of Session, the Magistrate has no jurisdiction under Section 457 for release of the seized property. In fact, the learned Sessions Judge has held that Section 457 of the Code does not put any embargo on a Magistrate to pass any order regarding disposal of the property involved in a case though triable by a Court of Session, but he has rejected the application on the ground that S .457 in terms cannot apply since the matter is still under investigation. In support of the aforesaid finding, the Sessions Judge has placed reliance on the decision of the Andhra Pradesh High Court in the case of State v. Smt. Syad Belouis Sultana (1986) 1 Crimes 177.',
	(int) 3 => '<p>3. The short question for consideration, therefore, is whether Section 487 of the Code can at all be attracted during the continuance of investigation and before filing of the charge-sheet or final form. Chapter XXXIV of the Code of Criminal Procedure deals with disposal of property. Section 451 contained therein deals with a situation when any property is produced in any criminal Court during any inquiry or trial and the court thinks it fit for passing appropriate order for proper custody of such property pending conclusion of the inquiry or trial. Section 452 deals with a situation where after conclusion of the trial, the Court can pass an order regarding disposal of the property in question. Section 457 is the only other section in the chapter dealing with disposal of property. For better appreciation of the point in issue, Section 457 of the Code is extracted hereunder in extenso:',
	(int) 4 => '<p>457. Procedure by police upon seizures of property:',
	(int) 5 => '<p>(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 property or the delivery of such property to the person entitled to the possession thereof, or if such person cannot be ascertained, respecting the custody and production of such property.',
	(int) 6 => '<p>(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.',
	(int) 7 => '<p>This section substantially corresponds to Section 523 of the Criminal Procedure Code, 1898. 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 any inquiry or trial, then the Magistrate gets jurisdiction under Section 487(1) to pass appropriate order for disposal of such property or for delivery of such property to ' the person entitled to the possession; thereof. If a literal meaning to the aforesaid provision is given, then though a property might have been seized by the police, yet until such seizure is reported to a Magistrate then the Magistrate will have no jurisdiction to pass any order under Section 457(1) of the Code. The learned Judge of the Andhra Pradesh High Court in deciding the case reported in (1986) 1 Crimes, 177, appears to have given the literal meaning to the words used in Section 457(1). But in my view such an interpretation would cause great injustice and there is no legislative intent behind giving the aforesaid interpretation. Placing of a report by the police before a Magistrate cannot be said to be a condition precedent for entertaining an application under Section 457. If the fact of seizure is brought to the notice of the Magistrate by any party interested or even, by a party who applies 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. In fact, this question has been lucidly discussed in the case of M. S. Jaggi v. Subase chandra Mohapatra (1977) 44 Cut LT 139 : 1977 Cri LJ 1902. After analysing the different provisions of the Code and considering Section 523 of the present Code, the learned Judge observed (at p. 1904):.Even though there be no provision in the Code obligating the police to report its seizure, nevertheless, if the factum of seizure is reported to the Magistrate by sources other than the police or the fact o f seizure otherwise comes to the knowledge of the Magistrate, he acquires jurisdiction under this section to pass appropriate orders in respect of the seized property. As in this case the factum of seizure was reported to him by the opposite party filing an application under Section 457, the Magistrate acquired jurisdiction to pass appropriate orders as he thought fit respecting the disposal of the seized property.',
	(int) 8 => '<p>In this view of the matter, the order of the learned Sessions Judge cannot be sustained and I would hold that the Magistrate had jurisdiction under Section 457 of the Code to pass appropriate order regarding release of the property and giving custody of the same.',
	(int) 9 => '<p>4. The next question for consideration would be as to on what terms the custody of the vehicle should be given to the petitioner who is admittedly the owner of the vehicle. This is a matter over which the Magistrate has not exercised his discretion since he illegally rejected the application as not being entertainable. Consequently, I think it appropriate to hold that the Magistrate should now consider the application filed by the petitioner and release the vehicle to the custody of the petitioner on such terms as he thinks fit in the facts and circumstances of the case.',
	(int) 10 => '<p>5. This Criminal Miscellaneous Application is accordingly allowed with the aforesaid direction and the petitioner may now appear before the learned Magistrate whereafter the Magistrate on hearing the petitioner would pass appropriate orders with regard to the terms for the release of the vehicle in favour of the petitioner.<p>',
	(int) 11 => '<p>'
)
$paragraphAfter = (int) 1
$cnt = (int) 12
$i = (int) 2
include - APP/View/Case/amp.ctp, line 144
View::_evaluate() - CORE/Cake/View/View.php, line 971
View::_render() - CORE/Cake/View/View.php, line 933
View::render() - CORE/Cake/View/View.php, line 473
Controller::render() - CORE/Cake/Controller/Controller.php, line 963
Dispatcher::_invoke() - CORE/Cake/Routing/Dispatcher.php, line 200
Dispatcher::dispatch() - CORE/Cake/Routing/Dispatcher.php, line 167
[main] - APP/webroot/index.php, line 109

2. In connection with G.R. Case No. 232 of 1988 under Sections 436/323/427/379, Penal Code, a truck bearing registration under ORL 537 was seized by the Investigating Officer on 22-7-1988. The petitioner is admittedly the owner of the said truck. After the seizure, the petitioner filed an application invoking the jurisdiction of the Magistrate under Section 457 of the Code of Criminal Procedure for getting custody of the vehicle. The learned Magistrate rejected the said application solely on the ground that the case being one triable by Court of Session, he had no jurisdiction to deal with the application. The petitioner, therefore, carried a revision to the Court of Session. The learned Sessions Judge came to the conclusion that the Magistrate was in error to hold that in a case triable by Court of Session, the Magistrate has no jurisdiction under Section 457 for release of the seized property. In fact, the learned Sessions Judge has held that Section 457 of the Code does not put any embargo on a Magistrate to pass any order regarding disposal of the property involved in a case though triable by a Court of Session, but he has rejected the application on the ground that S .457 in terms cannot apply since the matter is still under investigation. In support of the aforesaid finding, the Sessions Judge has placed reliance on the decision of the Andhra Pradesh High Court in the case of State v. Smt. Syad Belouis Sultana (1986) 1 Crimes 177.

Notice (8): Undefined variable: query [APP/View/Case/amp.ctp, line 144]
Code Context
                                         echo $this->Adsense->display('responsive_rect'); 

                                        }

                                        echo html_entity_decode($this->Wand->highlight($content[$i], $query));
$viewFile = '/home/legalcrystal/app/View/Case/amp.ctp'
$dataForView = array(
	'title_for_layout' => 'Krushna Charan Mohanty Vs State of Orissa - Citation 531760 - Court Judgment | ',
	'desc' => array(
		'Judgement' => array(
			'id' => '531760',
			'acts' => '',
			'appealno' => '',
			'appellant' => 'Krushna Charan Mohanty',
			'authreffered' => '',
			'casename' => 'Krushna Charan Mohanty Vs. State of Orissa',
			'casenote' => ' - LABOUR & SERVICES 
Pay Scale:[Tarun Chatterjee & R.M. Lodha,JJ] Fixation - Orissa Service Code (1939), Rule 74(b)  Promotion - Government servant, by virtue of Rule 74(b), gets higher pay than what he was getting immediately before his promotion - Circular Dated 19.3.1983 modifying earlier Circular Dated 18.6.1982 resulting in  reduction of pay of employee on promotion  Held, It is not legal. Statutory Rules cannot be altered or amended by such Executive orders or Circulars or Instructions nor can they replace Statutory Rules.
 -  For better appreciation of the point in issue, Section 457 of the Code is extracted hereunder in extenso:',
			'caseanalysis' => null,
			'casesref' => 'M. S. Jaggi v. Subase;',
			'citingcases' => '',
			'counselplain' => '',
			'counseldef' => '',
			'court' => 'Orissa',
			'court_type' => 'HC',
			'decidedon' => '1988-09-12',
			'deposition' => '',
			'favorof' => null,
			'findings' => null,
			'judge' => 'G.B. Patnaik, J.',
			'judgement' => 'ORDER<p style="text-align: justify;">G.B. Patnaik, J.</p><p style="text-align: justify;">1. This application has been filed invoking the jurisdiction of this Court under Section 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, as the petitioner's application for release of the motor vehicle was rejected by the learned Magistrate and on revision, the said order of rejection has been affirmed,</p><p style="text-align: justify;">2. In connection with G.R. Case No. 232 of 1988 under Sections 436/323/427/379, Penal Code, a truck bearing registration under ORL 537 was seized by the Investigating Officer on 22-7-1988. The petitioner is admittedly the owner of the said truck. After the seizure, the petitioner filed an application invoking the jurisdiction of the Magistrate under Section 457 of the Code of Criminal Procedure for getting custody of the vehicle. The learned Magistrate rejected the said application solely on the ground that the case being one triable by Court of Session, he had no jurisdiction to deal with the application. The petitioner, therefore, carried a revision to the Court of Session. The learned Sessions Judge came to the conclusion that the Magistrate was in error to hold that in a case triable by Court of Session, the Magistrate has no jurisdiction under Section 457 for release of the seized property. In fact, the learned Sessions Judge has held that Section 457 of the Code does not put any embargo on a Magistrate to pass any order regarding disposal of the property involved in a case though triable by a Court of Session, but he has rejected the application on the ground that S .457 in terms cannot apply since the matter is still under investigation. In support of the aforesaid finding, the Sessions Judge has placed reliance on the decision of the Andhra Pradesh High Court in the case of State v. Smt. Syad Belouis Sultana (1986) 1 Crimes 177.</p><p style="text-align: justify;">3. The short question for consideration, therefore, is whether Section 487 of the Code can at all be attracted during the continuance of investigation and before filing of the charge-sheet or final form. Chapter XXXIV of the Code of Criminal Procedure deals with disposal of property. Section 451 contained therein deals with a situation when any property is produced in any criminal Court during any inquiry or trial and the court thinks it fit for passing appropriate order for proper custody of such property pending conclusion of the inquiry or trial. Section 452 deals with a situation where after conclusion of the trial, the Court can pass an order regarding disposal of the property in question. Section 457 is the only other section in the chapter dealing with disposal of property. For better appreciation of the point in issue, Section 457 of the Code is extracted hereunder in extenso:</p><p style="text-align: justify;">457. Procedure by police upon seizures of property:</p><p style="text-align: justify;">(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 property or the delivery of such property to the person entitled to the possession thereof, or if such person cannot be ascertained, respecting the custody and production of such property.</p><p style="text-align: justify;">(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.</p><p style="text-align: justify;">This section substantially corresponds to Section 523 of the Criminal Procedure Code, 1898. 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 any inquiry or trial, then the Magistrate gets jurisdiction under Section 487(1) to pass appropriate order for disposal of such property or for delivery of such property to ' the person entitled to the possession; thereof. If a literal meaning to the aforesaid provision is given, then though a property might have been seized by the police, yet until such seizure is reported to a Magistrate then the Magistrate will have no jurisdiction to pass any order under Section 457(1) of the Code. The learned Judge of the Andhra Pradesh High Court in deciding the case reported in (1986) 1 Crimes, 177, appears to have given the literal meaning to the words used in Section 457(1). But in my view such an interpretation would cause great injustice and there is no legislative intent behind giving the aforesaid interpretation. Placing of a report by the police before a Magistrate cannot be said to be a condition precedent for entertaining an application under Section 457. If the fact of seizure is brought to the notice of the Magistrate by any party interested or even, by a party who applies 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. In fact, this question has been lucidly discussed in the case of M. S. Jaggi v. Subase chandra Mohapatra (1977) 44 Cut LT 139 : 1977 Cri LJ 1902. After analysing the different provisions of the Code and considering Section 523 of the present Code, the learned Judge observed (at p. 1904):.Even though there be no provision in the Code obligating the police to report its seizure, nevertheless, if the factum of seizure is reported to the Magistrate by sources other than the police or the fact o f seizure otherwise comes to the knowledge of the Magistrate, he acquires jurisdiction under this section to pass appropriate orders in respect of the seized property. As in this case the factum of seizure was reported to him by the opposite party filing an application under Section 457, the Magistrate acquired jurisdiction to pass appropriate orders as he thought fit respecting the disposal of the seized property.</p><p style="text-align: justify;">In this view of the matter, the order of the learned Sessions Judge cannot be sustained and I would hold that the Magistrate had jurisdiction under Section 457 of the Code to pass appropriate order regarding release of the property and giving custody of the same.</p><p style="text-align: justify;">4. The next question for consideration would be as to on what terms the custody of the vehicle should be given to the petitioner who is admittedly the owner of the vehicle. This is a matter over which the Magistrate has not exercised his discretion since he illegally rejected the application as not being entertainable. Consequently, I think it appropriate to hold that the Magistrate should now consider the application filed by the petitioner and release the vehicle to the custody of the petitioner on such terms as he thinks fit in the facts and circumstances of the case.</p><p style="text-align: justify;">5. This Criminal Miscellaneous Application is accordingly allowed with the aforesaid direction and the petitioner may now appear before the learned Magistrate whereafter the Magistrate on hearing the petitioner would pass appropriate orders with regard to the terms for the release of the vehicle in favour of the petitioner.<p style="text-align: justify;"></p><p style="text-align: justify;">',
			'observations' => null,
			'overruledby' => null,
			'prhistory' => '',
			'pubs' => '66(1988)CLT816; 1989CriLJ1025',
			'ratiodecidendi' => '',
			'respondent' => 'State of Orissa',
			'sub' => 'Criminal',
			'link' => null,
			'circuit' => null
		)
	),
	'casename_url' => 'krushna-charan-mohanty-vs-state-orissa',
	'args' => array(
		(int) 0 => '531760',
		(int) 1 => 'krushna-charan-mohanty-vs-state-orissa'
	)
)
$title_for_layout = 'Krushna Charan Mohanty Vs State of Orissa - Citation 531760 - Court Judgment | '
$desc = array(
	'Judgement' => array(
		'id' => '531760',
		'acts' => '',
		'appealno' => '',
		'appellant' => 'Krushna Charan Mohanty',
		'authreffered' => '',
		'casename' => 'Krushna Charan Mohanty Vs. State of Orissa',
		'casenote' => ' - LABOUR & SERVICES 
Pay Scale:[Tarun Chatterjee & R.M. Lodha,JJ] Fixation - Orissa Service Code (1939), Rule 74(b)  Promotion - Government servant, by virtue of Rule 74(b), gets higher pay than what he was getting immediately before his promotion - Circular Dated 19.3.1983 modifying earlier Circular Dated 18.6.1982 resulting in  reduction of pay of employee on promotion  Held, It is not legal. Statutory Rules cannot be altered or amended by such Executive orders or Circulars or Instructions nor can they replace Statutory Rules.
 -  For better appreciation of the point in issue, Section 457 of the Code is extracted hereunder in extenso:',
		'caseanalysis' => null,
		'casesref' => 'M. S. Jaggi v. Subase;',
		'citingcases' => '',
		'counselplain' => '',
		'counseldef' => '',
		'court' => 'Orissa',
		'court_type' => 'HC',
		'decidedon' => '1988-09-12',
		'deposition' => '',
		'favorof' => null,
		'findings' => null,
		'judge' => 'G.B. Patnaik, J.',
		'judgement' => 'ORDER<p>G.B. Patnaik, J.</p><p>1. This application has been filed invoking the jurisdiction of this Court under Section 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, as the petitioner's application for release of the motor vehicle was rejected by the learned Magistrate and on revision, the said order of rejection has been affirmed,</p><p>2. In connection with G.R. Case No. 232 of 1988 under Sections 436/323/427/379, Penal Code, a truck bearing registration under ORL 537 was seized by the Investigating Officer on 22-7-1988. The petitioner is admittedly the owner of the said truck. After the seizure, the petitioner filed an application invoking the jurisdiction of the Magistrate under Section 457 of the Code of Criminal Procedure for getting custody of the vehicle. The learned Magistrate rejected the said application solely on the ground that the case being one triable by Court of Session, he had no jurisdiction to deal with the application. The petitioner, therefore, carried a revision to the Court of Session. The learned Sessions Judge came to the conclusion that the Magistrate was in error to hold that in a case triable by Court of Session, the Magistrate has no jurisdiction under Section 457 for release of the seized property. In fact, the learned Sessions Judge has held that Section 457 of the Code does not put any embargo on a Magistrate to pass any order regarding disposal of the property involved in a case though triable by a Court of Session, but he has rejected the application on the ground that S .457 in terms cannot apply since the matter is still under investigation. In support of the aforesaid finding, the Sessions Judge has placed reliance on the decision of the Andhra Pradesh High Court in the case of State v. Smt. Syad Belouis Sultana (1986) 1 Crimes 177.</p><p>3. The short question for consideration, therefore, is whether Section 487 of the Code can at all be attracted during the continuance of investigation and before filing of the charge-sheet or final form. Chapter XXXIV of the Code of Criminal Procedure deals with disposal of property. Section 451 contained therein deals with a situation when any property is produced in any criminal Court during any inquiry or trial and the court thinks it fit for passing appropriate order for proper custody of such property pending conclusion of the inquiry or trial. Section 452 deals with a situation where after conclusion of the trial, the Court can pass an order regarding disposal of the property in question. Section 457 is the only other section in the chapter dealing with disposal of property. For better appreciation of the point in issue, Section 457 of the Code is extracted hereunder in extenso:</p><p>457. Procedure by police upon seizures of property:</p><p>(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 property or the delivery of such property to the person entitled to the possession thereof, or if such person cannot be ascertained, respecting the custody and production of such property.</p><p>(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.</p><p>This section substantially corresponds to Section 523 of the Criminal Procedure Code, 1898. 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 any inquiry or trial, then the Magistrate gets jurisdiction under Section 487(1) to pass appropriate order for disposal of such property or for delivery of such property to ' the person entitled to the possession; thereof. If a literal meaning to the aforesaid provision is given, then though a property might have been seized by the police, yet until such seizure is reported to a Magistrate then the Magistrate will have no jurisdiction to pass any order under Section 457(1) of the Code. The learned Judge of the Andhra Pradesh High Court in deciding the case reported in (1986) 1 Crimes, 177, appears to have given the literal meaning to the words used in Section 457(1). But in my view such an interpretation would cause great injustice and there is no legislative intent behind giving the aforesaid interpretation. Placing of a report by the police before a Magistrate cannot be said to be a condition precedent for entertaining an application under Section 457. If the fact of seizure is brought to the notice of the Magistrate by any party interested or even, by a party who applies 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. In fact, this question has been lucidly discussed in the case of M. S. Jaggi v. Subase chandra Mohapatra (1977) 44 Cut LT 139 : 1977 Cri LJ 1902. After analysing the different provisions of the Code and considering Section 523 of the present Code, the learned Judge observed (at p. 1904):.Even though there be no provision in the Code obligating the police to report its seizure, nevertheless, if the factum of seizure is reported to the Magistrate by sources other than the police or the fact o f seizure otherwise comes to the knowledge of the Magistrate, he acquires jurisdiction under this section to pass appropriate orders in respect of the seized property. As in this case the factum of seizure was reported to him by the opposite party filing an application under Section 457, the Magistrate acquired jurisdiction to pass appropriate orders as he thought fit respecting the disposal of the seized property.</p><p>In this view of the matter, the order of the learned Sessions Judge cannot be sustained and I would hold that the Magistrate had jurisdiction under Section 457 of the Code to pass appropriate order regarding release of the property and giving custody of the same.</p><p>4. The next question for consideration would be as to on what terms the custody of the vehicle should be given to the petitioner who is admittedly the owner of the vehicle. This is a matter over which the Magistrate has not exercised his discretion since he illegally rejected the application as not being entertainable. Consequently, I think it appropriate to hold that the Magistrate should now consider the application filed by the petitioner and release the vehicle to the custody of the petitioner on such terms as he thinks fit in the facts and circumstances of the case.</p><p>5. This Criminal Miscellaneous Application is accordingly allowed with the aforesaid direction and the petitioner may now appear before the learned Magistrate whereafter the Magistrate on hearing the petitioner would pass appropriate orders with regard to the terms for the release of the vehicle in favour of the petitioner.<p></p><p>',
		'observations' => null,
		'overruledby' => null,
		'prhistory' => '',
		'pubs' => '66(1988)CLT816; 1989CriLJ1025',
		'ratiodecidendi' => '',
		'respondent' => 'State of Orissa',
		'sub' => 'Criminal',
		'link' => null,
		'circuit' => null
	)
)
$casename_url = 'krushna-charan-mohanty-vs-state-orissa'
$args = array(
	(int) 0 => '531760',
	(int) 1 => 'krushna-charan-mohanty-vs-state-orissa'
)
$url = 'https://sooperkanoon.com/case/amp/531760/krushna-charan-mohanty-vs-state-orissa'
$ctype = ' High Court'
$caseref = 'M. S. Jaggi v. Subase<br>'
$content = array(
	(int) 0 => 'ORDER<p>G.B. Patnaik, J.',
	(int) 1 => '<p>1. This application has been filed invoking the jurisdiction of this Court under Section 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, as the petitioner's application for release of the motor vehicle was rejected by the learned Magistrate and on revision, the said order of rejection has been affirmed,',
	(int) 2 => '<p>2. In connection with G.R. Case No. 232 of 1988 under Sections 436/323/427/379, Penal Code, a truck bearing registration under ORL 537 was seized by the Investigating Officer on 22-7-1988. The petitioner is admittedly the owner of the said truck. After the seizure, the petitioner filed an application invoking the jurisdiction of the Magistrate under Section 457 of the Code of Criminal Procedure for getting custody of the vehicle. The learned Magistrate rejected the said application solely on the ground that the case being one triable by Court of Session, he had no jurisdiction to deal with the application. The petitioner, therefore, carried a revision to the Court of Session. The learned Sessions Judge came to the conclusion that the Magistrate was in error to hold that in a case triable by Court of Session, the Magistrate has no jurisdiction under Section 457 for release of the seized property. In fact, the learned Sessions Judge has held that Section 457 of the Code does not put any embargo on a Magistrate to pass any order regarding disposal of the property involved in a case though triable by a Court of Session, but he has rejected the application on the ground that S .457 in terms cannot apply since the matter is still under investigation. In support of the aforesaid finding, the Sessions Judge has placed reliance on the decision of the Andhra Pradesh High Court in the case of State v. Smt. Syad Belouis Sultana (1986) 1 Crimes 177.',
	(int) 3 => '<p>3. The short question for consideration, therefore, is whether Section 487 of the Code can at all be attracted during the continuance of investigation and before filing of the charge-sheet or final form. Chapter XXXIV of the Code of Criminal Procedure deals with disposal of property. Section 451 contained therein deals with a situation when any property is produced in any criminal Court during any inquiry or trial and the court thinks it fit for passing appropriate order for proper custody of such property pending conclusion of the inquiry or trial. Section 452 deals with a situation where after conclusion of the trial, the Court can pass an order regarding disposal of the property in question. Section 457 is the only other section in the chapter dealing with disposal of property. For better appreciation of the point in issue, Section 457 of the Code is extracted hereunder in extenso:',
	(int) 4 => '<p>457. Procedure by police upon seizures of property:',
	(int) 5 => '<p>(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 property or the delivery of such property to the person entitled to the possession thereof, or if such person cannot be ascertained, respecting the custody and production of such property.',
	(int) 6 => '<p>(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.',
	(int) 7 => '<p>This section substantially corresponds to Section 523 of the Criminal Procedure Code, 1898. 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 any inquiry or trial, then the Magistrate gets jurisdiction under Section 487(1) to pass appropriate order for disposal of such property or for delivery of such property to ' the person entitled to the possession; thereof. If a literal meaning to the aforesaid provision is given, then though a property might have been seized by the police, yet until such seizure is reported to a Magistrate then the Magistrate will have no jurisdiction to pass any order under Section 457(1) of the Code. The learned Judge of the Andhra Pradesh High Court in deciding the case reported in (1986) 1 Crimes, 177, appears to have given the literal meaning to the words used in Section 457(1). But in my view such an interpretation would cause great injustice and there is no legislative intent behind giving the aforesaid interpretation. Placing of a report by the police before a Magistrate cannot be said to be a condition precedent for entertaining an application under Section 457. If the fact of seizure is brought to the notice of the Magistrate by any party interested or even, by a party who applies 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. In fact, this question has been lucidly discussed in the case of M. S. Jaggi v. Subase chandra Mohapatra (1977) 44 Cut LT 139 : 1977 Cri LJ 1902. After analysing the different provisions of the Code and considering Section 523 of the present Code, the learned Judge observed (at p. 1904):.Even though there be no provision in the Code obligating the police to report its seizure, nevertheless, if the factum of seizure is reported to the Magistrate by sources other than the police or the fact o f seizure otherwise comes to the knowledge of the Magistrate, he acquires jurisdiction under this section to pass appropriate orders in respect of the seized property. As in this case the factum of seizure was reported to him by the opposite party filing an application under Section 457, the Magistrate acquired jurisdiction to pass appropriate orders as he thought fit respecting the disposal of the seized property.',
	(int) 8 => '<p>In this view of the matter, the order of the learned Sessions Judge cannot be sustained and I would hold that the Magistrate had jurisdiction under Section 457 of the Code to pass appropriate order regarding release of the property and giving custody of the same.',
	(int) 9 => '<p>4. The next question for consideration would be as to on what terms the custody of the vehicle should be given to the petitioner who is admittedly the owner of the vehicle. This is a matter over which the Magistrate has not exercised his discretion since he illegally rejected the application as not being entertainable. Consequently, I think it appropriate to hold that the Magistrate should now consider the application filed by the petitioner and release the vehicle to the custody of the petitioner on such terms as he thinks fit in the facts and circumstances of the case.',
	(int) 10 => '<p>5. This Criminal Miscellaneous Application is accordingly allowed with the aforesaid direction and the petitioner may now appear before the learned Magistrate whereafter the Magistrate on hearing the petitioner would pass appropriate orders with regard to the terms for the release of the vehicle in favour of the petitioner.<p>',
	(int) 11 => '<p>'
)
$paragraphAfter = (int) 1
$cnt = (int) 12
$i = (int) 3
include - APP/View/Case/amp.ctp, line 144
View::_evaluate() - CORE/Cake/View/View.php, line 971
View::_render() - CORE/Cake/View/View.php, line 933
View::render() - CORE/Cake/View/View.php, line 473
Controller::render() - CORE/Cake/Controller/Controller.php, line 963
Dispatcher::_invoke() - CORE/Cake/Routing/Dispatcher.php, line 200
Dispatcher::dispatch() - CORE/Cake/Routing/Dispatcher.php, line 167
[main] - APP/webroot/index.php, line 109

3. The short question for consideration, therefore, is whether Section 487 of the Code can at all be attracted during the continuance of investigation and before filing of the charge-sheet or final form. Chapter XXXIV of the Code of Criminal Procedure deals with disposal of property. Section 451 contained therein deals with a situation when any property is produced in any criminal Court during any inquiry or trial and the court thinks it fit for passing appropriate order for proper custody of such property pending conclusion of the inquiry or trial. Section 452 deals with a situation where after conclusion of the trial, the Court can pass an order regarding disposal of the property in question. Section 457 is the only other section in the chapter dealing with disposal of property. For better appreciation of the point in issue, Section 457 of the Code is extracted hereunder in extenso:

Notice (8): Undefined variable: query [APP/View/Case/amp.ctp, line 144]
Code Context
                                         echo $this->Adsense->display('responsive_rect'); 

                                        }

                                        echo html_entity_decode($this->Wand->highlight($content[$i], $query));
$viewFile = '/home/legalcrystal/app/View/Case/amp.ctp'
$dataForView = array(
	'title_for_layout' => 'Krushna Charan Mohanty Vs State of Orissa - Citation 531760 - Court Judgment | ',
	'desc' => array(
		'Judgement' => array(
			'id' => '531760',
			'acts' => '',
			'appealno' => '',
			'appellant' => 'Krushna Charan Mohanty',
			'authreffered' => '',
			'casename' => 'Krushna Charan Mohanty Vs. State of Orissa',
			'casenote' => ' - LABOUR & SERVICES 
Pay Scale:[Tarun Chatterjee & R.M. Lodha,JJ] Fixation - Orissa Service Code (1939), Rule 74(b)  Promotion - Government servant, by virtue of Rule 74(b), gets higher pay than what he was getting immediately before his promotion - Circular Dated 19.3.1983 modifying earlier Circular Dated 18.6.1982 resulting in  reduction of pay of employee on promotion  Held, It is not legal. Statutory Rules cannot be altered or amended by such Executive orders or Circulars or Instructions nor can they replace Statutory Rules.
 -  For better appreciation of the point in issue, Section 457 of the Code is extracted hereunder in extenso:',
			'caseanalysis' => null,
			'casesref' => 'M. S. Jaggi v. Subase;',
			'citingcases' => '',
			'counselplain' => '',
			'counseldef' => '',
			'court' => 'Orissa',
			'court_type' => 'HC',
			'decidedon' => '1988-09-12',
			'deposition' => '',
			'favorof' => null,
			'findings' => null,
			'judge' => 'G.B. Patnaik, J.',
			'judgement' => 'ORDER<p style="text-align: justify;">G.B. Patnaik, J.</p><p style="text-align: justify;">1. This application has been filed invoking the jurisdiction of this Court under Section 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, as the petitioner's application for release of the motor vehicle was rejected by the learned Magistrate and on revision, the said order of rejection has been affirmed,</p><p style="text-align: justify;">2. In connection with G.R. Case No. 232 of 1988 under Sections 436/323/427/379, Penal Code, a truck bearing registration under ORL 537 was seized by the Investigating Officer on 22-7-1988. The petitioner is admittedly the owner of the said truck. After the seizure, the petitioner filed an application invoking the jurisdiction of the Magistrate under Section 457 of the Code of Criminal Procedure for getting custody of the vehicle. The learned Magistrate rejected the said application solely on the ground that the case being one triable by Court of Session, he had no jurisdiction to deal with the application. The petitioner, therefore, carried a revision to the Court of Session. The learned Sessions Judge came to the conclusion that the Magistrate was in error to hold that in a case triable by Court of Session, the Magistrate has no jurisdiction under Section 457 for release of the seized property. In fact, the learned Sessions Judge has held that Section 457 of the Code does not put any embargo on a Magistrate to pass any order regarding disposal of the property involved in a case though triable by a Court of Session, but he has rejected the application on the ground that S .457 in terms cannot apply since the matter is still under investigation. In support of the aforesaid finding, the Sessions Judge has placed reliance on the decision of the Andhra Pradesh High Court in the case of State v. Smt. Syad Belouis Sultana (1986) 1 Crimes 177.</p><p style="text-align: justify;">3. The short question for consideration, therefore, is whether Section 487 of the Code can at all be attracted during the continuance of investigation and before filing of the charge-sheet or final form. Chapter XXXIV of the Code of Criminal Procedure deals with disposal of property. Section 451 contained therein deals with a situation when any property is produced in any criminal Court during any inquiry or trial and the court thinks it fit for passing appropriate order for proper custody of such property pending conclusion of the inquiry or trial. Section 452 deals with a situation where after conclusion of the trial, the Court can pass an order regarding disposal of the property in question. Section 457 is the only other section in the chapter dealing with disposal of property. For better appreciation of the point in issue, Section 457 of the Code is extracted hereunder in extenso:</p><p style="text-align: justify;">457. Procedure by police upon seizures of property:</p><p style="text-align: justify;">(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 property or the delivery of such property to the person entitled to the possession thereof, or if such person cannot be ascertained, respecting the custody and production of such property.</p><p style="text-align: justify;">(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.</p><p style="text-align: justify;">This section substantially corresponds to Section 523 of the Criminal Procedure Code, 1898. 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 any inquiry or trial, then the Magistrate gets jurisdiction under Section 487(1) to pass appropriate order for disposal of such property or for delivery of such property to ' the person entitled to the possession; thereof. If a literal meaning to the aforesaid provision is given, then though a property might have been seized by the police, yet until such seizure is reported to a Magistrate then the Magistrate will have no jurisdiction to pass any order under Section 457(1) of the Code. The learned Judge of the Andhra Pradesh High Court in deciding the case reported in (1986) 1 Crimes, 177, appears to have given the literal meaning to the words used in Section 457(1). But in my view such an interpretation would cause great injustice and there is no legislative intent behind giving the aforesaid interpretation. Placing of a report by the police before a Magistrate cannot be said to be a condition precedent for entertaining an application under Section 457. If the fact of seizure is brought to the notice of the Magistrate by any party interested or even, by a party who applies 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. In fact, this question has been lucidly discussed in the case of M. S. Jaggi v. Subase chandra Mohapatra (1977) 44 Cut LT 139 : 1977 Cri LJ 1902. After analysing the different provisions of the Code and considering Section 523 of the present Code, the learned Judge observed (at p. 1904):.Even though there be no provision in the Code obligating the police to report its seizure, nevertheless, if the factum of seizure is reported to the Magistrate by sources other than the police or the fact o f seizure otherwise comes to the knowledge of the Magistrate, he acquires jurisdiction under this section to pass appropriate orders in respect of the seized property. As in this case the factum of seizure was reported to him by the opposite party filing an application under Section 457, the Magistrate acquired jurisdiction to pass appropriate orders as he thought fit respecting the disposal of the seized property.</p><p style="text-align: justify;">In this view of the matter, the order of the learned Sessions Judge cannot be sustained and I would hold that the Magistrate had jurisdiction under Section 457 of the Code to pass appropriate order regarding release of the property and giving custody of the same.</p><p style="text-align: justify;">4. The next question for consideration would be as to on what terms the custody of the vehicle should be given to the petitioner who is admittedly the owner of the vehicle. This is a matter over which the Magistrate has not exercised his discretion since he illegally rejected the application as not being entertainable. Consequently, I think it appropriate to hold that the Magistrate should now consider the application filed by the petitioner and release the vehicle to the custody of the petitioner on such terms as he thinks fit in the facts and circumstances of the case.</p><p style="text-align: justify;">5. This Criminal Miscellaneous Application is accordingly allowed with the aforesaid direction and the petitioner may now appear before the learned Magistrate whereafter the Magistrate on hearing the petitioner would pass appropriate orders with regard to the terms for the release of the vehicle in favour of the petitioner.<p style="text-align: justify;"></p><p style="text-align: justify;">',
			'observations' => null,
			'overruledby' => null,
			'prhistory' => '',
			'pubs' => '66(1988)CLT816; 1989CriLJ1025',
			'ratiodecidendi' => '',
			'respondent' => 'State of Orissa',
			'sub' => 'Criminal',
			'link' => null,
			'circuit' => null
		)
	),
	'casename_url' => 'krushna-charan-mohanty-vs-state-orissa',
	'args' => array(
		(int) 0 => '531760',
		(int) 1 => 'krushna-charan-mohanty-vs-state-orissa'
	)
)
$title_for_layout = 'Krushna Charan Mohanty Vs State of Orissa - Citation 531760 - Court Judgment | '
$desc = array(
	'Judgement' => array(
		'id' => '531760',
		'acts' => '',
		'appealno' => '',
		'appellant' => 'Krushna Charan Mohanty',
		'authreffered' => '',
		'casename' => 'Krushna Charan Mohanty Vs. State of Orissa',
		'casenote' => ' - LABOUR & SERVICES 
Pay Scale:[Tarun Chatterjee & R.M. Lodha,JJ] Fixation - Orissa Service Code (1939), Rule 74(b)  Promotion - Government servant, by virtue of Rule 74(b), gets higher pay than what he was getting immediately before his promotion - Circular Dated 19.3.1983 modifying earlier Circular Dated 18.6.1982 resulting in  reduction of pay of employee on promotion  Held, It is not legal. Statutory Rules cannot be altered or amended by such Executive orders or Circulars or Instructions nor can they replace Statutory Rules.
 -  For better appreciation of the point in issue, Section 457 of the Code is extracted hereunder in extenso:',
		'caseanalysis' => null,
		'casesref' => 'M. S. Jaggi v. Subase;',
		'citingcases' => '',
		'counselplain' => '',
		'counseldef' => '',
		'court' => 'Orissa',
		'court_type' => 'HC',
		'decidedon' => '1988-09-12',
		'deposition' => '',
		'favorof' => null,
		'findings' => null,
		'judge' => 'G.B. Patnaik, J.',
		'judgement' => 'ORDER<p>G.B. Patnaik, J.</p><p>1. This application has been filed invoking the jurisdiction of this Court under Section 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, as the petitioner's application for release of the motor vehicle was rejected by the learned Magistrate and on revision, the said order of rejection has been affirmed,</p><p>2. In connection with G.R. Case No. 232 of 1988 under Sections 436/323/427/379, Penal Code, a truck bearing registration under ORL 537 was seized by the Investigating Officer on 22-7-1988. The petitioner is admittedly the owner of the said truck. After the seizure, the petitioner filed an application invoking the jurisdiction of the Magistrate under Section 457 of the Code of Criminal Procedure for getting custody of the vehicle. The learned Magistrate rejected the said application solely on the ground that the case being one triable by Court of Session, he had no jurisdiction to deal with the application. The petitioner, therefore, carried a revision to the Court of Session. The learned Sessions Judge came to the conclusion that the Magistrate was in error to hold that in a case triable by Court of Session, the Magistrate has no jurisdiction under Section 457 for release of the seized property. In fact, the learned Sessions Judge has held that Section 457 of the Code does not put any embargo on a Magistrate to pass any order regarding disposal of the property involved in a case though triable by a Court of Session, but he has rejected the application on the ground that S .457 in terms cannot apply since the matter is still under investigation. In support of the aforesaid finding, the Sessions Judge has placed reliance on the decision of the Andhra Pradesh High Court in the case of State v. Smt. Syad Belouis Sultana (1986) 1 Crimes 177.</p><p>3. The short question for consideration, therefore, is whether Section 487 of the Code can at all be attracted during the continuance of investigation and before filing of the charge-sheet or final form. Chapter XXXIV of the Code of Criminal Procedure deals with disposal of property. Section 451 contained therein deals with a situation when any property is produced in any criminal Court during any inquiry or trial and the court thinks it fit for passing appropriate order for proper custody of such property pending conclusion of the inquiry or trial. Section 452 deals with a situation where after conclusion of the trial, the Court can pass an order regarding disposal of the property in question. Section 457 is the only other section in the chapter dealing with disposal of property. For better appreciation of the point in issue, Section 457 of the Code is extracted hereunder in extenso:</p><p>457. Procedure by police upon seizures of property:</p><p>(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 property or the delivery of such property to the person entitled to the possession thereof, or if such person cannot be ascertained, respecting the custody and production of such property.</p><p>(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.</p><p>This section substantially corresponds to Section 523 of the Criminal Procedure Code, 1898. 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 any inquiry or trial, then the Magistrate gets jurisdiction under Section 487(1) to pass appropriate order for disposal of such property or for delivery of such property to ' the person entitled to the possession; thereof. If a literal meaning to the aforesaid provision is given, then though a property might have been seized by the police, yet until such seizure is reported to a Magistrate then the Magistrate will have no jurisdiction to pass any order under Section 457(1) of the Code. The learned Judge of the Andhra Pradesh High Court in deciding the case reported in (1986) 1 Crimes, 177, appears to have given the literal meaning to the words used in Section 457(1). But in my view such an interpretation would cause great injustice and there is no legislative intent behind giving the aforesaid interpretation. Placing of a report by the police before a Magistrate cannot be said to be a condition precedent for entertaining an application under Section 457. If the fact of seizure is brought to the notice of the Magistrate by any party interested or even, by a party who applies 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. In fact, this question has been lucidly discussed in the case of M. S. Jaggi v. Subase chandra Mohapatra (1977) 44 Cut LT 139 : 1977 Cri LJ 1902. After analysing the different provisions of the Code and considering Section 523 of the present Code, the learned Judge observed (at p. 1904):.Even though there be no provision in the Code obligating the police to report its seizure, nevertheless, if the factum of seizure is reported to the Magistrate by sources other than the police or the fact o f seizure otherwise comes to the knowledge of the Magistrate, he acquires jurisdiction under this section to pass appropriate orders in respect of the seized property. As in this case the factum of seizure was reported to him by the opposite party filing an application under Section 457, the Magistrate acquired jurisdiction to pass appropriate orders as he thought fit respecting the disposal of the seized property.</p><p>In this view of the matter, the order of the learned Sessions Judge cannot be sustained and I would hold that the Magistrate had jurisdiction under Section 457 of the Code to pass appropriate order regarding release of the property and giving custody of the same.</p><p>4. The next question for consideration would be as to on what terms the custody of the vehicle should be given to the petitioner who is admittedly the owner of the vehicle. This is a matter over which the Magistrate has not exercised his discretion since he illegally rejected the application as not being entertainable. Consequently, I think it appropriate to hold that the Magistrate should now consider the application filed by the petitioner and release the vehicle to the custody of the petitioner on such terms as he thinks fit in the facts and circumstances of the case.</p><p>5. This Criminal Miscellaneous Application is accordingly allowed with the aforesaid direction and the petitioner may now appear before the learned Magistrate whereafter the Magistrate on hearing the petitioner would pass appropriate orders with regard to the terms for the release of the vehicle in favour of the petitioner.<p></p><p>',
		'observations' => null,
		'overruledby' => null,
		'prhistory' => '',
		'pubs' => '66(1988)CLT816; 1989CriLJ1025',
		'ratiodecidendi' => '',
		'respondent' => 'State of Orissa',
		'sub' => 'Criminal',
		'link' => null,
		'circuit' => null
	)
)
$casename_url = 'krushna-charan-mohanty-vs-state-orissa'
$args = array(
	(int) 0 => '531760',
	(int) 1 => 'krushna-charan-mohanty-vs-state-orissa'
)
$url = 'https://sooperkanoon.com/case/amp/531760/krushna-charan-mohanty-vs-state-orissa'
$ctype = ' High Court'
$caseref = 'M. S. Jaggi v. Subase<br>'
$content = array(
	(int) 0 => 'ORDER<p>G.B. Patnaik, J.',
	(int) 1 => '<p>1. This application has been filed invoking the jurisdiction of this Court under Section 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, as the petitioner's application for release of the motor vehicle was rejected by the learned Magistrate and on revision, the said order of rejection has been affirmed,',
	(int) 2 => '<p>2. In connection with G.R. Case No. 232 of 1988 under Sections 436/323/427/379, Penal Code, a truck bearing registration under ORL 537 was seized by the Investigating Officer on 22-7-1988. The petitioner is admittedly the owner of the said truck. After the seizure, the petitioner filed an application invoking the jurisdiction of the Magistrate under Section 457 of the Code of Criminal Procedure for getting custody of the vehicle. The learned Magistrate rejected the said application solely on the ground that the case being one triable by Court of Session, he had no jurisdiction to deal with the application. The petitioner, therefore, carried a revision to the Court of Session. The learned Sessions Judge came to the conclusion that the Magistrate was in error to hold that in a case triable by Court of Session, the Magistrate has no jurisdiction under Section 457 for release of the seized property. In fact, the learned Sessions Judge has held that Section 457 of the Code does not put any embargo on a Magistrate to pass any order regarding disposal of the property involved in a case though triable by a Court of Session, but he has rejected the application on the ground that S .457 in terms cannot apply since the matter is still under investigation. In support of the aforesaid finding, the Sessions Judge has placed reliance on the decision of the Andhra Pradesh High Court in the case of State v. Smt. Syad Belouis Sultana (1986) 1 Crimes 177.',
	(int) 3 => '<p>3. The short question for consideration, therefore, is whether Section 487 of the Code can at all be attracted during the continuance of investigation and before filing of the charge-sheet or final form. Chapter XXXIV of the Code of Criminal Procedure deals with disposal of property. Section 451 contained therein deals with a situation when any property is produced in any criminal Court during any inquiry or trial and the court thinks it fit for passing appropriate order for proper custody of such property pending conclusion of the inquiry or trial. Section 452 deals with a situation where after conclusion of the trial, the Court can pass an order regarding disposal of the property in question. Section 457 is the only other section in the chapter dealing with disposal of property. For better appreciation of the point in issue, Section 457 of the Code is extracted hereunder in extenso:',
	(int) 4 => '<p>457. Procedure by police upon seizures of property:',
	(int) 5 => '<p>(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 property or the delivery of such property to the person entitled to the possession thereof, or if such person cannot be ascertained, respecting the custody and production of such property.',
	(int) 6 => '<p>(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.',
	(int) 7 => '<p>This section substantially corresponds to Section 523 of the Criminal Procedure Code, 1898. 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 any inquiry or trial, then the Magistrate gets jurisdiction under Section 487(1) to pass appropriate order for disposal of such property or for delivery of such property to ' the person entitled to the possession; thereof. If a literal meaning to the aforesaid provision is given, then though a property might have been seized by the police, yet until such seizure is reported to a Magistrate then the Magistrate will have no jurisdiction to pass any order under Section 457(1) of the Code. The learned Judge of the Andhra Pradesh High Court in deciding the case reported in (1986) 1 Crimes, 177, appears to have given the literal meaning to the words used in Section 457(1). But in my view such an interpretation would cause great injustice and there is no legislative intent behind giving the aforesaid interpretation. Placing of a report by the police before a Magistrate cannot be said to be a condition precedent for entertaining an application under Section 457. If the fact of seizure is brought to the notice of the Magistrate by any party interested or even, by a party who applies 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. In fact, this question has been lucidly discussed in the case of M. S. Jaggi v. Subase chandra Mohapatra (1977) 44 Cut LT 139 : 1977 Cri LJ 1902. After analysing the different provisions of the Code and considering Section 523 of the present Code, the learned Judge observed (at p. 1904):.Even though there be no provision in the Code obligating the police to report its seizure, nevertheless, if the factum of seizure is reported to the Magistrate by sources other than the police or the fact o f seizure otherwise comes to the knowledge of the Magistrate, he acquires jurisdiction under this section to pass appropriate orders in respect of the seized property. As in this case the factum of seizure was reported to him by the opposite party filing an application under Section 457, the Magistrate acquired jurisdiction to pass appropriate orders as he thought fit respecting the disposal of the seized property.',
	(int) 8 => '<p>In this view of the matter, the order of the learned Sessions Judge cannot be sustained and I would hold that the Magistrate had jurisdiction under Section 457 of the Code to pass appropriate order regarding release of the property and giving custody of the same.',
	(int) 9 => '<p>4. The next question for consideration would be as to on what terms the custody of the vehicle should be given to the petitioner who is admittedly the owner of the vehicle. This is a matter over which the Magistrate has not exercised his discretion since he illegally rejected the application as not being entertainable. Consequently, I think it appropriate to hold that the Magistrate should now consider the application filed by the petitioner and release the vehicle to the custody of the petitioner on such terms as he thinks fit in the facts and circumstances of the case.',
	(int) 10 => '<p>5. This Criminal Miscellaneous Application is accordingly allowed with the aforesaid direction and the petitioner may now appear before the learned Magistrate whereafter the Magistrate on hearing the petitioner would pass appropriate orders with regard to the terms for the release of the vehicle in favour of the petitioner.<p>',
	(int) 11 => '<p>'
)
$paragraphAfter = (int) 1
$cnt = (int) 12
$i = (int) 4
include - APP/View/Case/amp.ctp, line 144
View::_evaluate() - CORE/Cake/View/View.php, line 971
View::_render() - CORE/Cake/View/View.php, line 933
View::render() - CORE/Cake/View/View.php, line 473
Controller::render() - CORE/Cake/Controller/Controller.php, line 963
Dispatcher::_invoke() - CORE/Cake/Routing/Dispatcher.php, line 200
Dispatcher::dispatch() - CORE/Cake/Routing/Dispatcher.php, line 167
[main] - APP/webroot/index.php, line 109

457. Procedure by police upon seizures of property:

Notice (8): Undefined variable: query [APP/View/Case/amp.ctp, line 144]
Code Context
                                         echo $this->Adsense->display('responsive_rect'); 

                                        }

                                        echo html_entity_decode($this->Wand->highlight($content[$i], $query));
$viewFile = '/home/legalcrystal/app/View/Case/amp.ctp'
$dataForView = array(
	'title_for_layout' => 'Krushna Charan Mohanty Vs State of Orissa - Citation 531760 - Court Judgment | ',
	'desc' => array(
		'Judgement' => array(
			'id' => '531760',
			'acts' => '',
			'appealno' => '',
			'appellant' => 'Krushna Charan Mohanty',
			'authreffered' => '',
			'casename' => 'Krushna Charan Mohanty Vs. State of Orissa',
			'casenote' => ' - LABOUR & SERVICES 
Pay Scale:[Tarun Chatterjee & R.M. Lodha,JJ] Fixation - Orissa Service Code (1939), Rule 74(b)  Promotion - Government servant, by virtue of Rule 74(b), gets higher pay than what he was getting immediately before his promotion - Circular Dated 19.3.1983 modifying earlier Circular Dated 18.6.1982 resulting in  reduction of pay of employee on promotion  Held, It is not legal. Statutory Rules cannot be altered or amended by such Executive orders or Circulars or Instructions nor can they replace Statutory Rules.
 -  For better appreciation of the point in issue, Section 457 of the Code is extracted hereunder in extenso:',
			'caseanalysis' => null,
			'casesref' => 'M. S. Jaggi v. Subase;',
			'citingcases' => '',
			'counselplain' => '',
			'counseldef' => '',
			'court' => 'Orissa',
			'court_type' => 'HC',
			'decidedon' => '1988-09-12',
			'deposition' => '',
			'favorof' => null,
			'findings' => null,
			'judge' => 'G.B. Patnaik, J.',
			'judgement' => 'ORDER<p style="text-align: justify;">G.B. Patnaik, J.</p><p style="text-align: justify;">1. This application has been filed invoking the jurisdiction of this Court under Section 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, as the petitioner's application for release of the motor vehicle was rejected by the learned Magistrate and on revision, the said order of rejection has been affirmed,</p><p style="text-align: justify;">2. In connection with G.R. Case No. 232 of 1988 under Sections 436/323/427/379, Penal Code, a truck bearing registration under ORL 537 was seized by the Investigating Officer on 22-7-1988. The petitioner is admittedly the owner of the said truck. After the seizure, the petitioner filed an application invoking the jurisdiction of the Magistrate under Section 457 of the Code of Criminal Procedure for getting custody of the vehicle. The learned Magistrate rejected the said application solely on the ground that the case being one triable by Court of Session, he had no jurisdiction to deal with the application. The petitioner, therefore, carried a revision to the Court of Session. The learned Sessions Judge came to the conclusion that the Magistrate was in error to hold that in a case triable by Court of Session, the Magistrate has no jurisdiction under Section 457 for release of the seized property. In fact, the learned Sessions Judge has held that Section 457 of the Code does not put any embargo on a Magistrate to pass any order regarding disposal of the property involved in a case though triable by a Court of Session, but he has rejected the application on the ground that S .457 in terms cannot apply since the matter is still under investigation. In support of the aforesaid finding, the Sessions Judge has placed reliance on the decision of the Andhra Pradesh High Court in the case of State v. Smt. Syad Belouis Sultana (1986) 1 Crimes 177.</p><p style="text-align: justify;">3. The short question for consideration, therefore, is whether Section 487 of the Code can at all be attracted during the continuance of investigation and before filing of the charge-sheet or final form. Chapter XXXIV of the Code of Criminal Procedure deals with disposal of property. Section 451 contained therein deals with a situation when any property is produced in any criminal Court during any inquiry or trial and the court thinks it fit for passing appropriate order for proper custody of such property pending conclusion of the inquiry or trial. Section 452 deals with a situation where after conclusion of the trial, the Court can pass an order regarding disposal of the property in question. Section 457 is the only other section in the chapter dealing with disposal of property. For better appreciation of the point in issue, Section 457 of the Code is extracted hereunder in extenso:</p><p style="text-align: justify;">457. Procedure by police upon seizures of property:</p><p style="text-align: justify;">(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 property or the delivery of such property to the person entitled to the possession thereof, or if such person cannot be ascertained, respecting the custody and production of such property.</p><p style="text-align: justify;">(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.</p><p style="text-align: justify;">This section substantially corresponds to Section 523 of the Criminal Procedure Code, 1898. 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 any inquiry or trial, then the Magistrate gets jurisdiction under Section 487(1) to pass appropriate order for disposal of such property or for delivery of such property to ' the person entitled to the possession; thereof. If a literal meaning to the aforesaid provision is given, then though a property might have been seized by the police, yet until such seizure is reported to a Magistrate then the Magistrate will have no jurisdiction to pass any order under Section 457(1) of the Code. The learned Judge of the Andhra Pradesh High Court in deciding the case reported in (1986) 1 Crimes, 177, appears to have given the literal meaning to the words used in Section 457(1). But in my view such an interpretation would cause great injustice and there is no legislative intent behind giving the aforesaid interpretation. Placing of a report by the police before a Magistrate cannot be said to be a condition precedent for entertaining an application under Section 457. If the fact of seizure is brought to the notice of the Magistrate by any party interested or even, by a party who applies 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. In fact, this question has been lucidly discussed in the case of M. S. Jaggi v. Subase chandra Mohapatra (1977) 44 Cut LT 139 : 1977 Cri LJ 1902. After analysing the different provisions of the Code and considering Section 523 of the present Code, the learned Judge observed (at p. 1904):.Even though there be no provision in the Code obligating the police to report its seizure, nevertheless, if the factum of seizure is reported to the Magistrate by sources other than the police or the fact o f seizure otherwise comes to the knowledge of the Magistrate, he acquires jurisdiction under this section to pass appropriate orders in respect of the seized property. As in this case the factum of seizure was reported to him by the opposite party filing an application under Section 457, the Magistrate acquired jurisdiction to pass appropriate orders as he thought fit respecting the disposal of the seized property.</p><p style="text-align: justify;">In this view of the matter, the order of the learned Sessions Judge cannot be sustained and I would hold that the Magistrate had jurisdiction under Section 457 of the Code to pass appropriate order regarding release of the property and giving custody of the same.</p><p style="text-align: justify;">4. The next question for consideration would be as to on what terms the custody of the vehicle should be given to the petitioner who is admittedly the owner of the vehicle. This is a matter over which the Magistrate has not exercised his discretion since he illegally rejected the application as not being entertainable. Consequently, I think it appropriate to hold that the Magistrate should now consider the application filed by the petitioner and release the vehicle to the custody of the petitioner on such terms as he thinks fit in the facts and circumstances of the case.</p><p style="text-align: justify;">5. This Criminal Miscellaneous Application is accordingly allowed with the aforesaid direction and the petitioner may now appear before the learned Magistrate whereafter the Magistrate on hearing the petitioner would pass appropriate orders with regard to the terms for the release of the vehicle in favour of the petitioner.<p style="text-align: justify;"></p><p style="text-align: justify;">',
			'observations' => null,
			'overruledby' => null,
			'prhistory' => '',
			'pubs' => '66(1988)CLT816; 1989CriLJ1025',
			'ratiodecidendi' => '',
			'respondent' => 'State of Orissa',
			'sub' => 'Criminal',
			'link' => null,
			'circuit' => null
		)
	),
	'casename_url' => 'krushna-charan-mohanty-vs-state-orissa',
	'args' => array(
		(int) 0 => '531760',
		(int) 1 => 'krushna-charan-mohanty-vs-state-orissa'
	)
)
$title_for_layout = 'Krushna Charan Mohanty Vs State of Orissa - Citation 531760 - Court Judgment | '
$desc = array(
	'Judgement' => array(
		'id' => '531760',
		'acts' => '',
		'appealno' => '',
		'appellant' => 'Krushna Charan Mohanty',
		'authreffered' => '',
		'casename' => 'Krushna Charan Mohanty Vs. State of Orissa',
		'casenote' => ' - LABOUR & SERVICES 
Pay Scale:[Tarun Chatterjee & R.M. Lodha,JJ] Fixation - Orissa Service Code (1939), Rule 74(b)  Promotion - Government servant, by virtue of Rule 74(b), gets higher pay than what he was getting immediately before his promotion - Circular Dated 19.3.1983 modifying earlier Circular Dated 18.6.1982 resulting in  reduction of pay of employee on promotion  Held, It is not legal. Statutory Rules cannot be altered or amended by such Executive orders or Circulars or Instructions nor can they replace Statutory Rules.
 -  For better appreciation of the point in issue, Section 457 of the Code is extracted hereunder in extenso:',
		'caseanalysis' => null,
		'casesref' => 'M. S. Jaggi v. Subase;',
		'citingcases' => '',
		'counselplain' => '',
		'counseldef' => '',
		'court' => 'Orissa',
		'court_type' => 'HC',
		'decidedon' => '1988-09-12',
		'deposition' => '',
		'favorof' => null,
		'findings' => null,
		'judge' => 'G.B. Patnaik, J.',
		'judgement' => 'ORDER<p>G.B. Patnaik, J.</p><p>1. This application has been filed invoking the jurisdiction of this Court under Section 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, as the petitioner's application for release of the motor vehicle was rejected by the learned Magistrate and on revision, the said order of rejection has been affirmed,</p><p>2. In connection with G.R. Case No. 232 of 1988 under Sections 436/323/427/379, Penal Code, a truck bearing registration under ORL 537 was seized by the Investigating Officer on 22-7-1988. The petitioner is admittedly the owner of the said truck. After the seizure, the petitioner filed an application invoking the jurisdiction of the Magistrate under Section 457 of the Code of Criminal Procedure for getting custody of the vehicle. The learned Magistrate rejected the said application solely on the ground that the case being one triable by Court of Session, he had no jurisdiction to deal with the application. The petitioner, therefore, carried a revision to the Court of Session. The learned Sessions Judge came to the conclusion that the Magistrate was in error to hold that in a case triable by Court of Session, the Magistrate has no jurisdiction under Section 457 for release of the seized property. In fact, the learned Sessions Judge has held that Section 457 of the Code does not put any embargo on a Magistrate to pass any order regarding disposal of the property involved in a case though triable by a Court of Session, but he has rejected the application on the ground that S .457 in terms cannot apply since the matter is still under investigation. In support of the aforesaid finding, the Sessions Judge has placed reliance on the decision of the Andhra Pradesh High Court in the case of State v. Smt. Syad Belouis Sultana (1986) 1 Crimes 177.</p><p>3. The short question for consideration, therefore, is whether Section 487 of the Code can at all be attracted during the continuance of investigation and before filing of the charge-sheet or final form. Chapter XXXIV of the Code of Criminal Procedure deals with disposal of property. Section 451 contained therein deals with a situation when any property is produced in any criminal Court during any inquiry or trial and the court thinks it fit for passing appropriate order for proper custody of such property pending conclusion of the inquiry or trial. Section 452 deals with a situation where after conclusion of the trial, the Court can pass an order regarding disposal of the property in question. Section 457 is the only other section in the chapter dealing with disposal of property. For better appreciation of the point in issue, Section 457 of the Code is extracted hereunder in extenso:</p><p>457. Procedure by police upon seizures of property:</p><p>(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 property or the delivery of such property to the person entitled to the possession thereof, or if such person cannot be ascertained, respecting the custody and production of such property.</p><p>(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.</p><p>This section substantially corresponds to Section 523 of the Criminal Procedure Code, 1898. 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 any inquiry or trial, then the Magistrate gets jurisdiction under Section 487(1) to pass appropriate order for disposal of such property or for delivery of such property to ' the person entitled to the possession; thereof. If a literal meaning to the aforesaid provision is given, then though a property might have been seized by the police, yet until such seizure is reported to a Magistrate then the Magistrate will have no jurisdiction to pass any order under Section 457(1) of the Code. The learned Judge of the Andhra Pradesh High Court in deciding the case reported in (1986) 1 Crimes, 177, appears to have given the literal meaning to the words used in Section 457(1). But in my view such an interpretation would cause great injustice and there is no legislative intent behind giving the aforesaid interpretation. Placing of a report by the police before a Magistrate cannot be said to be a condition precedent for entertaining an application under Section 457. If the fact of seizure is brought to the notice of the Magistrate by any party interested or even, by a party who applies 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. In fact, this question has been lucidly discussed in the case of M. S. Jaggi v. Subase chandra Mohapatra (1977) 44 Cut LT 139 : 1977 Cri LJ 1902. After analysing the different provisions of the Code and considering Section 523 of the present Code, the learned Judge observed (at p. 1904):.Even though there be no provision in the Code obligating the police to report its seizure, nevertheless, if the factum of seizure is reported to the Magistrate by sources other than the police or the fact o f seizure otherwise comes to the knowledge of the Magistrate, he acquires jurisdiction under this section to pass appropriate orders in respect of the seized property. As in this case the factum of seizure was reported to him by the opposite party filing an application under Section 457, the Magistrate acquired jurisdiction to pass appropriate orders as he thought fit respecting the disposal of the seized property.</p><p>In this view of the matter, the order of the learned Sessions Judge cannot be sustained and I would hold that the Magistrate had jurisdiction under Section 457 of the Code to pass appropriate order regarding release of the property and giving custody of the same.</p><p>4. The next question for consideration would be as to on what terms the custody of the vehicle should be given to the petitioner who is admittedly the owner of the vehicle. This is a matter over which the Magistrate has not exercised his discretion since he illegally rejected the application as not being entertainable. Consequently, I think it appropriate to hold that the Magistrate should now consider the application filed by the petitioner and release the vehicle to the custody of the petitioner on such terms as he thinks fit in the facts and circumstances of the case.</p><p>5. This Criminal Miscellaneous Application is accordingly allowed with the aforesaid direction and the petitioner may now appear before the learned Magistrate whereafter the Magistrate on hearing the petitioner would pass appropriate orders with regard to the terms for the release of the vehicle in favour of the petitioner.<p></p><p>',
		'observations' => null,
		'overruledby' => null,
		'prhistory' => '',
		'pubs' => '66(1988)CLT816; 1989CriLJ1025',
		'ratiodecidendi' => '',
		'respondent' => 'State of Orissa',
		'sub' => 'Criminal',
		'link' => null,
		'circuit' => null
	)
)
$casename_url = 'krushna-charan-mohanty-vs-state-orissa'
$args = array(
	(int) 0 => '531760',
	(int) 1 => 'krushna-charan-mohanty-vs-state-orissa'
)
$url = 'https://sooperkanoon.com/case/amp/531760/krushna-charan-mohanty-vs-state-orissa'
$ctype = ' High Court'
$caseref = 'M. S. Jaggi v. Subase<br>'
$content = array(
	(int) 0 => 'ORDER<p>G.B. Patnaik, J.',
	(int) 1 => '<p>1. This application has been filed invoking the jurisdiction of this Court under Section 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, as the petitioner's application for release of the motor vehicle was rejected by the learned Magistrate and on revision, the said order of rejection has been affirmed,',
	(int) 2 => '<p>2. In connection with G.R. Case No. 232 of 1988 under Sections 436/323/427/379, Penal Code, a truck bearing registration under ORL 537 was seized by the Investigating Officer on 22-7-1988. The petitioner is admittedly the owner of the said truck. After the seizure, the petitioner filed an application invoking the jurisdiction of the Magistrate under Section 457 of the Code of Criminal Procedure for getting custody of the vehicle. The learned Magistrate rejected the said application solely on the ground that the case being one triable by Court of Session, he had no jurisdiction to deal with the application. The petitioner, therefore, carried a revision to the Court of Session. The learned Sessions Judge came to the conclusion that the Magistrate was in error to hold that in a case triable by Court of Session, the Magistrate has no jurisdiction under Section 457 for release of the seized property. In fact, the learned Sessions Judge has held that Section 457 of the Code does not put any embargo on a Magistrate to pass any order regarding disposal of the property involved in a case though triable by a Court of Session, but he has rejected the application on the ground that S .457 in terms cannot apply since the matter is still under investigation. In support of the aforesaid finding, the Sessions Judge has placed reliance on the decision of the Andhra Pradesh High Court in the case of State v. Smt. Syad Belouis Sultana (1986) 1 Crimes 177.',
	(int) 3 => '<p>3. The short question for consideration, therefore, is whether Section 487 of the Code can at all be attracted during the continuance of investigation and before filing of the charge-sheet or final form. Chapter XXXIV of the Code of Criminal Procedure deals with disposal of property. Section 451 contained therein deals with a situation when any property is produced in any criminal Court during any inquiry or trial and the court thinks it fit for passing appropriate order for proper custody of such property pending conclusion of the inquiry or trial. Section 452 deals with a situation where after conclusion of the trial, the Court can pass an order regarding disposal of the property in question. Section 457 is the only other section in the chapter dealing with disposal of property. For better appreciation of the point in issue, Section 457 of the Code is extracted hereunder in extenso:',
	(int) 4 => '<p>457. Procedure by police upon seizures of property:',
	(int) 5 => '<p>(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 property or the delivery of such property to the person entitled to the possession thereof, or if such person cannot be ascertained, respecting the custody and production of such property.',
	(int) 6 => '<p>(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.',
	(int) 7 => '<p>This section substantially corresponds to Section 523 of the Criminal Procedure Code, 1898. 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 any inquiry or trial, then the Magistrate gets jurisdiction under Section 487(1) to pass appropriate order for disposal of such property or for delivery of such property to ' the person entitled to the possession; thereof. If a literal meaning to the aforesaid provision is given, then though a property might have been seized by the police, yet until such seizure is reported to a Magistrate then the Magistrate will have no jurisdiction to pass any order under Section 457(1) of the Code. The learned Judge of the Andhra Pradesh High Court in deciding the case reported in (1986) 1 Crimes, 177, appears to have given the literal meaning to the words used in Section 457(1). But in my view such an interpretation would cause great injustice and there is no legislative intent behind giving the aforesaid interpretation. Placing of a report by the police before a Magistrate cannot be said to be a condition precedent for entertaining an application under Section 457. If the fact of seizure is brought to the notice of the Magistrate by any party interested or even, by a party who applies 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. In fact, this question has been lucidly discussed in the case of M. S. Jaggi v. Subase chandra Mohapatra (1977) 44 Cut LT 139 : 1977 Cri LJ 1902. After analysing the different provisions of the Code and considering Section 523 of the present Code, the learned Judge observed (at p. 1904):.Even though there be no provision in the Code obligating the police to report its seizure, nevertheless, if the factum of seizure is reported to the Magistrate by sources other than the police or the fact o f seizure otherwise comes to the knowledge of the Magistrate, he acquires jurisdiction under this section to pass appropriate orders in respect of the seized property. As in this case the factum of seizure was reported to him by the opposite party filing an application under Section 457, the Magistrate acquired jurisdiction to pass appropriate orders as he thought fit respecting the disposal of the seized property.',
	(int) 8 => '<p>In this view of the matter, the order of the learned Sessions Judge cannot be sustained and I would hold that the Magistrate had jurisdiction under Section 457 of the Code to pass appropriate order regarding release of the property and giving custody of the same.',
	(int) 9 => '<p>4. The next question for consideration would be as to on what terms the custody of the vehicle should be given to the petitioner who is admittedly the owner of the vehicle. This is a matter over which the Magistrate has not exercised his discretion since he illegally rejected the application as not being entertainable. Consequently, I think it appropriate to hold that the Magistrate should now consider the application filed by the petitioner and release the vehicle to the custody of the petitioner on such terms as he thinks fit in the facts and circumstances of the case.',
	(int) 10 => '<p>5. This Criminal Miscellaneous Application is accordingly allowed with the aforesaid direction and the petitioner may now appear before the learned Magistrate whereafter the Magistrate on hearing the petitioner would pass appropriate orders with regard to the terms for the release of the vehicle in favour of the petitioner.<p>',
	(int) 11 => '<p>'
)
$paragraphAfter = (int) 1
$cnt = (int) 12
$i = (int) 5
include - APP/View/Case/amp.ctp, line 144
View::_evaluate() - CORE/Cake/View/View.php, line 971
View::_render() - CORE/Cake/View/View.php, line 933
View::render() - CORE/Cake/View/View.php, line 473
Controller::render() - CORE/Cake/Controller/Controller.php, line 963
Dispatcher::_invoke() - CORE/Cake/Routing/Dispatcher.php, line 200
Dispatcher::dispatch() - CORE/Cake/Routing/Dispatcher.php, line 167
[main] - APP/webroot/index.php, line 109

(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 property or the delivery of such property to the person entitled to the possession thereof, or if such person cannot be ascertained, respecting the custody and production of such property.

Notice (8): Undefined variable: query [APP/View/Case/amp.ctp, line 144]
Code Context
                                         echo $this->Adsense->display('responsive_rect'); 

                                        }

                                        echo html_entity_decode($this->Wand->highlight($content[$i], $query));
$viewFile = '/home/legalcrystal/app/View/Case/amp.ctp'
$dataForView = array(
	'title_for_layout' => 'Krushna Charan Mohanty Vs State of Orissa - Citation 531760 - Court Judgment | ',
	'desc' => array(
		'Judgement' => array(
			'id' => '531760',
			'acts' => '',
			'appealno' => '',
			'appellant' => 'Krushna Charan Mohanty',
			'authreffered' => '',
			'casename' => 'Krushna Charan Mohanty Vs. State of Orissa',
			'casenote' => ' - LABOUR & SERVICES 
Pay Scale:[Tarun Chatterjee & R.M. Lodha,JJ] Fixation - Orissa Service Code (1939), Rule 74(b)  Promotion - Government servant, by virtue of Rule 74(b), gets higher pay than what he was getting immediately before his promotion - Circular Dated 19.3.1983 modifying earlier Circular Dated 18.6.1982 resulting in  reduction of pay of employee on promotion  Held, It is not legal. Statutory Rules cannot be altered or amended by such Executive orders or Circulars or Instructions nor can they replace Statutory Rules.
 -  For better appreciation of the point in issue, Section 457 of the Code is extracted hereunder in extenso:',
			'caseanalysis' => null,
			'casesref' => 'M. S. Jaggi v. Subase;',
			'citingcases' => '',
			'counselplain' => '',
			'counseldef' => '',
			'court' => 'Orissa',
			'court_type' => 'HC',
			'decidedon' => '1988-09-12',
			'deposition' => '',
			'favorof' => null,
			'findings' => null,
			'judge' => 'G.B. Patnaik, J.',
			'judgement' => 'ORDER<p style="text-align: justify;">G.B. Patnaik, J.</p><p style="text-align: justify;">1. This application has been filed invoking the jurisdiction of this Court under Section 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, as the petitioner's application for release of the motor vehicle was rejected by the learned Magistrate and on revision, the said order of rejection has been affirmed,</p><p style="text-align: justify;">2. In connection with G.R. Case No. 232 of 1988 under Sections 436/323/427/379, Penal Code, a truck bearing registration under ORL 537 was seized by the Investigating Officer on 22-7-1988. The petitioner is admittedly the owner of the said truck. After the seizure, the petitioner filed an application invoking the jurisdiction of the Magistrate under Section 457 of the Code of Criminal Procedure for getting custody of the vehicle. The learned Magistrate rejected the said application solely on the ground that the case being one triable by Court of Session, he had no jurisdiction to deal with the application. The petitioner, therefore, carried a revision to the Court of Session. The learned Sessions Judge came to the conclusion that the Magistrate was in error to hold that in a case triable by Court of Session, the Magistrate has no jurisdiction under Section 457 for release of the seized property. In fact, the learned Sessions Judge has held that Section 457 of the Code does not put any embargo on a Magistrate to pass any order regarding disposal of the property involved in a case though triable by a Court of Session, but he has rejected the application on the ground that S .457 in terms cannot apply since the matter is still under investigation. In support of the aforesaid finding, the Sessions Judge has placed reliance on the decision of the Andhra Pradesh High Court in the case of State v. Smt. Syad Belouis Sultana (1986) 1 Crimes 177.</p><p style="text-align: justify;">3. The short question for consideration, therefore, is whether Section 487 of the Code can at all be attracted during the continuance of investigation and before filing of the charge-sheet or final form. Chapter XXXIV of the Code of Criminal Procedure deals with disposal of property. Section 451 contained therein deals with a situation when any property is produced in any criminal Court during any inquiry or trial and the court thinks it fit for passing appropriate order for proper custody of such property pending conclusion of the inquiry or trial. Section 452 deals with a situation where after conclusion of the trial, the Court can pass an order regarding disposal of the property in question. Section 457 is the only other section in the chapter dealing with disposal of property. For better appreciation of the point in issue, Section 457 of the Code is extracted hereunder in extenso:</p><p style="text-align: justify;">457. Procedure by police upon seizures of property:</p><p style="text-align: justify;">(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 property or the delivery of such property to the person entitled to the possession thereof, or if such person cannot be ascertained, respecting the custody and production of such property.</p><p style="text-align: justify;">(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.</p><p style="text-align: justify;">This section substantially corresponds to Section 523 of the Criminal Procedure Code, 1898. 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 any inquiry or trial, then the Magistrate gets jurisdiction under Section 487(1) to pass appropriate order for disposal of such property or for delivery of such property to ' the person entitled to the possession; thereof. If a literal meaning to the aforesaid provision is given, then though a property might have been seized by the police, yet until such seizure is reported to a Magistrate then the Magistrate will have no jurisdiction to pass any order under Section 457(1) of the Code. The learned Judge of the Andhra Pradesh High Court in deciding the case reported in (1986) 1 Crimes, 177, appears to have given the literal meaning to the words used in Section 457(1). But in my view such an interpretation would cause great injustice and there is no legislative intent behind giving the aforesaid interpretation. Placing of a report by the police before a Magistrate cannot be said to be a condition precedent for entertaining an application under Section 457. If the fact of seizure is brought to the notice of the Magistrate by any party interested or even, by a party who applies 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. In fact, this question has been lucidly discussed in the case of M. S. Jaggi v. Subase chandra Mohapatra (1977) 44 Cut LT 139 : 1977 Cri LJ 1902. After analysing the different provisions of the Code and considering Section 523 of the present Code, the learned Judge observed (at p. 1904):.Even though there be no provision in the Code obligating the police to report its seizure, nevertheless, if the factum of seizure is reported to the Magistrate by sources other than the police or the fact o f seizure otherwise comes to the knowledge of the Magistrate, he acquires jurisdiction under this section to pass appropriate orders in respect of the seized property. As in this case the factum of seizure was reported to him by the opposite party filing an application under Section 457, the Magistrate acquired jurisdiction to pass appropriate orders as he thought fit respecting the disposal of the seized property.</p><p style="text-align: justify;">In this view of the matter, the order of the learned Sessions Judge cannot be sustained and I would hold that the Magistrate had jurisdiction under Section 457 of the Code to pass appropriate order regarding release of the property and giving custody of the same.</p><p style="text-align: justify;">4. The next question for consideration would be as to on what terms the custody of the vehicle should be given to the petitioner who is admittedly the owner of the vehicle. This is a matter over which the Magistrate has not exercised his discretion since he illegally rejected the application as not being entertainable. Consequently, I think it appropriate to hold that the Magistrate should now consider the application filed by the petitioner and release the vehicle to the custody of the petitioner on such terms as he thinks fit in the facts and circumstances of the case.</p><p style="text-align: justify;">5. This Criminal Miscellaneous Application is accordingly allowed with the aforesaid direction and the petitioner may now appear before the learned Magistrate whereafter the Magistrate on hearing the petitioner would pass appropriate orders with regard to the terms for the release of the vehicle in favour of the petitioner.<p style="text-align: justify;"></p><p style="text-align: justify;">',
			'observations' => null,
			'overruledby' => null,
			'prhistory' => '',
			'pubs' => '66(1988)CLT816; 1989CriLJ1025',
			'ratiodecidendi' => '',
			'respondent' => 'State of Orissa',
			'sub' => 'Criminal',
			'link' => null,
			'circuit' => null
		)
	),
	'casename_url' => 'krushna-charan-mohanty-vs-state-orissa',
	'args' => array(
		(int) 0 => '531760',
		(int) 1 => 'krushna-charan-mohanty-vs-state-orissa'
	)
)
$title_for_layout = 'Krushna Charan Mohanty Vs State of Orissa - Citation 531760 - Court Judgment | '
$desc = array(
	'Judgement' => array(
		'id' => '531760',
		'acts' => '',
		'appealno' => '',
		'appellant' => 'Krushna Charan Mohanty',
		'authreffered' => '',
		'casename' => 'Krushna Charan Mohanty Vs. State of Orissa',
		'casenote' => ' - LABOUR & SERVICES 
Pay Scale:[Tarun Chatterjee & R.M. Lodha,JJ] Fixation - Orissa Service Code (1939), Rule 74(b)  Promotion - Government servant, by virtue of Rule 74(b), gets higher pay than what he was getting immediately before his promotion - Circular Dated 19.3.1983 modifying earlier Circular Dated 18.6.1982 resulting in  reduction of pay of employee on promotion  Held, It is not legal. Statutory Rules cannot be altered or amended by such Executive orders or Circulars or Instructions nor can they replace Statutory Rules.
 -  For better appreciation of the point in issue, Section 457 of the Code is extracted hereunder in extenso:',
		'caseanalysis' => null,
		'casesref' => 'M. S. Jaggi v. Subase;',
		'citingcases' => '',
		'counselplain' => '',
		'counseldef' => '',
		'court' => 'Orissa',
		'court_type' => 'HC',
		'decidedon' => '1988-09-12',
		'deposition' => '',
		'favorof' => null,
		'findings' => null,
		'judge' => 'G.B. Patnaik, J.',
		'judgement' => 'ORDER<p>G.B. Patnaik, J.</p><p>1. This application has been filed invoking the jurisdiction of this Court under Section 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, as the petitioner's application for release of the motor vehicle was rejected by the learned Magistrate and on revision, the said order of rejection has been affirmed,</p><p>2. In connection with G.R. Case No. 232 of 1988 under Sections 436/323/427/379, Penal Code, a truck bearing registration under ORL 537 was seized by the Investigating Officer on 22-7-1988. The petitioner is admittedly the owner of the said truck. After the seizure, the petitioner filed an application invoking the jurisdiction of the Magistrate under Section 457 of the Code of Criminal Procedure for getting custody of the vehicle. The learned Magistrate rejected the said application solely on the ground that the case being one triable by Court of Session, he had no jurisdiction to deal with the application. The petitioner, therefore, carried a revision to the Court of Session. The learned Sessions Judge came to the conclusion that the Magistrate was in error to hold that in a case triable by Court of Session, the Magistrate has no jurisdiction under Section 457 for release of the seized property. In fact, the learned Sessions Judge has held that Section 457 of the Code does not put any embargo on a Magistrate to pass any order regarding disposal of the property involved in a case though triable by a Court of Session, but he has rejected the application on the ground that S .457 in terms cannot apply since the matter is still under investigation. In support of the aforesaid finding, the Sessions Judge has placed reliance on the decision of the Andhra Pradesh High Court in the case of State v. Smt. Syad Belouis Sultana (1986) 1 Crimes 177.</p><p>3. The short question for consideration, therefore, is whether Section 487 of the Code can at all be attracted during the continuance of investigation and before filing of the charge-sheet or final form. Chapter XXXIV of the Code of Criminal Procedure deals with disposal of property. Section 451 contained therein deals with a situation when any property is produced in any criminal Court during any inquiry or trial and the court thinks it fit for passing appropriate order for proper custody of such property pending conclusion of the inquiry or trial. Section 452 deals with a situation where after conclusion of the trial, the Court can pass an order regarding disposal of the property in question. Section 457 is the only other section in the chapter dealing with disposal of property. For better appreciation of the point in issue, Section 457 of the Code is extracted hereunder in extenso:</p><p>457. Procedure by police upon seizures of property:</p><p>(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 property or the delivery of such property to the person entitled to the possession thereof, or if such person cannot be ascertained, respecting the custody and production of such property.</p><p>(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.</p><p>This section substantially corresponds to Section 523 of the Criminal Procedure Code, 1898. 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 any inquiry or trial, then the Magistrate gets jurisdiction under Section 487(1) to pass appropriate order for disposal of such property or for delivery of such property to ' the person entitled to the possession; thereof. If a literal meaning to the aforesaid provision is given, then though a property might have been seized by the police, yet until such seizure is reported to a Magistrate then the Magistrate will have no jurisdiction to pass any order under Section 457(1) of the Code. The learned Judge of the Andhra Pradesh High Court in deciding the case reported in (1986) 1 Crimes, 177, appears to have given the literal meaning to the words used in Section 457(1). But in my view such an interpretation would cause great injustice and there is no legislative intent behind giving the aforesaid interpretation. Placing of a report by the police before a Magistrate cannot be said to be a condition precedent for entertaining an application under Section 457. If the fact of seizure is brought to the notice of the Magistrate by any party interested or even, by a party who applies 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. In fact, this question has been lucidly discussed in the case of M. S. Jaggi v. Subase chandra Mohapatra (1977) 44 Cut LT 139 : 1977 Cri LJ 1902. After analysing the different provisions of the Code and considering Section 523 of the present Code, the learned Judge observed (at p. 1904):.Even though there be no provision in the Code obligating the police to report its seizure, nevertheless, if the factum of seizure is reported to the Magistrate by sources other than the police or the fact o f seizure otherwise comes to the knowledge of the Magistrate, he acquires jurisdiction under this section to pass appropriate orders in respect of the seized property. As in this case the factum of seizure was reported to him by the opposite party filing an application under Section 457, the Magistrate acquired jurisdiction to pass appropriate orders as he thought fit respecting the disposal of the seized property.</p><p>In this view of the matter, the order of the learned Sessions Judge cannot be sustained and I would hold that the Magistrate had jurisdiction under Section 457 of the Code to pass appropriate order regarding release of the property and giving custody of the same.</p><p>4. The next question for consideration would be as to on what terms the custody of the vehicle should be given to the petitioner who is admittedly the owner of the vehicle. This is a matter over which the Magistrate has not exercised his discretion since he illegally rejected the application as not being entertainable. Consequently, I think it appropriate to hold that the Magistrate should now consider the application filed by the petitioner and release the vehicle to the custody of the petitioner on such terms as he thinks fit in the facts and circumstances of the case.</p><p>5. This Criminal Miscellaneous Application is accordingly allowed with the aforesaid direction and the petitioner may now appear before the learned Magistrate whereafter the Magistrate on hearing the petitioner would pass appropriate orders with regard to the terms for the release of the vehicle in favour of the petitioner.<p></p><p>',
		'observations' => null,
		'overruledby' => null,
		'prhistory' => '',
		'pubs' => '66(1988)CLT816; 1989CriLJ1025',
		'ratiodecidendi' => '',
		'respondent' => 'State of Orissa',
		'sub' => 'Criminal',
		'link' => null,
		'circuit' => null
	)
)
$casename_url = 'krushna-charan-mohanty-vs-state-orissa'
$args = array(
	(int) 0 => '531760',
	(int) 1 => 'krushna-charan-mohanty-vs-state-orissa'
)
$url = 'https://sooperkanoon.com/case/amp/531760/krushna-charan-mohanty-vs-state-orissa'
$ctype = ' High Court'
$caseref = 'M. S. Jaggi v. Subase<br>'
$content = array(
	(int) 0 => 'ORDER<p>G.B. Patnaik, J.',
	(int) 1 => '<p>1. This application has been filed invoking the jurisdiction of this Court under Section 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, as the petitioner's application for release of the motor vehicle was rejected by the learned Magistrate and on revision, the said order of rejection has been affirmed,',
	(int) 2 => '<p>2. In connection with G.R. Case No. 232 of 1988 under Sections 436/323/427/379, Penal Code, a truck bearing registration under ORL 537 was seized by the Investigating Officer on 22-7-1988. The petitioner is admittedly the owner of the said truck. After the seizure, the petitioner filed an application invoking the jurisdiction of the Magistrate under Section 457 of the Code of Criminal Procedure for getting custody of the vehicle. The learned Magistrate rejected the said application solely on the ground that the case being one triable by Court of Session, he had no jurisdiction to deal with the application. The petitioner, therefore, carried a revision to the Court of Session. The learned Sessions Judge came to the conclusion that the Magistrate was in error to hold that in a case triable by Court of Session, the Magistrate has no jurisdiction under Section 457 for release of the seized property. In fact, the learned Sessions Judge has held that Section 457 of the Code does not put any embargo on a Magistrate to pass any order regarding disposal of the property involved in a case though triable by a Court of Session, but he has rejected the application on the ground that S .457 in terms cannot apply since the matter is still under investigation. In support of the aforesaid finding, the Sessions Judge has placed reliance on the decision of the Andhra Pradesh High Court in the case of State v. Smt. Syad Belouis Sultana (1986) 1 Crimes 177.',
	(int) 3 => '<p>3. The short question for consideration, therefore, is whether Section 487 of the Code can at all be attracted during the continuance of investigation and before filing of the charge-sheet or final form. Chapter XXXIV of the Code of Criminal Procedure deals with disposal of property. Section 451 contained therein deals with a situation when any property is produced in any criminal Court during any inquiry or trial and the court thinks it fit for passing appropriate order for proper custody of such property pending conclusion of the inquiry or trial. Section 452 deals with a situation where after conclusion of the trial, the Court can pass an order regarding disposal of the property in question. Section 457 is the only other section in the chapter dealing with disposal of property. For better appreciation of the point in issue, Section 457 of the Code is extracted hereunder in extenso:',
	(int) 4 => '<p>457. Procedure by police upon seizures of property:',
	(int) 5 => '<p>(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 property or the delivery of such property to the person entitled to the possession thereof, or if such person cannot be ascertained, respecting the custody and production of such property.',
	(int) 6 => '<p>(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.',
	(int) 7 => '<p>This section substantially corresponds to Section 523 of the Criminal Procedure Code, 1898. 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 any inquiry or trial, then the Magistrate gets jurisdiction under Section 487(1) to pass appropriate order for disposal of such property or for delivery of such property to ' the person entitled to the possession; thereof. If a literal meaning to the aforesaid provision is given, then though a property might have been seized by the police, yet until such seizure is reported to a Magistrate then the Magistrate will have no jurisdiction to pass any order under Section 457(1) of the Code. The learned Judge of the Andhra Pradesh High Court in deciding the case reported in (1986) 1 Crimes, 177, appears to have given the literal meaning to the words used in Section 457(1). But in my view such an interpretation would cause great injustice and there is no legislative intent behind giving the aforesaid interpretation. Placing of a report by the police before a Magistrate cannot be said to be a condition precedent for entertaining an application under Section 457. If the fact of seizure is brought to the notice of the Magistrate by any party interested or even, by a party who applies 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. In fact, this question has been lucidly discussed in the case of M. S. Jaggi v. Subase chandra Mohapatra (1977) 44 Cut LT 139 : 1977 Cri LJ 1902. After analysing the different provisions of the Code and considering Section 523 of the present Code, the learned Judge observed (at p. 1904):.Even though there be no provision in the Code obligating the police to report its seizure, nevertheless, if the factum of seizure is reported to the Magistrate by sources other than the police or the fact o f seizure otherwise comes to the knowledge of the Magistrate, he acquires jurisdiction under this section to pass appropriate orders in respect of the seized property. As in this case the factum of seizure was reported to him by the opposite party filing an application under Section 457, the Magistrate acquired jurisdiction to pass appropriate orders as he thought fit respecting the disposal of the seized property.',
	(int) 8 => '<p>In this view of the matter, the order of the learned Sessions Judge cannot be sustained and I would hold that the Magistrate had jurisdiction under Section 457 of the Code to pass appropriate order regarding release of the property and giving custody of the same.',
	(int) 9 => '<p>4. The next question for consideration would be as to on what terms the custody of the vehicle should be given to the petitioner who is admittedly the owner of the vehicle. This is a matter over which the Magistrate has not exercised his discretion since he illegally rejected the application as not being entertainable. Consequently, I think it appropriate to hold that the Magistrate should now consider the application filed by the petitioner and release the vehicle to the custody of the petitioner on such terms as he thinks fit in the facts and circumstances of the case.',
	(int) 10 => '<p>5. This Criminal Miscellaneous Application is accordingly allowed with the aforesaid direction and the petitioner may now appear before the learned Magistrate whereafter the Magistrate on hearing the petitioner would pass appropriate orders with regard to the terms for the release of the vehicle in favour of the petitioner.<p>',
	(int) 11 => '<p>'
)
$paragraphAfter = (int) 1
$cnt = (int) 12
$i = (int) 6
include - APP/View/Case/amp.ctp, line 144
View::_evaluate() - CORE/Cake/View/View.php, line 971
View::_render() - CORE/Cake/View/View.php, line 933
View::render() - CORE/Cake/View/View.php, line 473
Controller::render() - CORE/Cake/Controller/Controller.php, line 963
Dispatcher::_invoke() - CORE/Cake/Routing/Dispatcher.php, line 200
Dispatcher::dispatch() - CORE/Cake/Routing/Dispatcher.php, line 167
[main] - APP/webroot/index.php, line 109

(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.

Notice (8): Undefined variable: query [APP/View/Case/amp.ctp, line 144]
Code Context
                                         echo $this->Adsense->display('responsive_rect'); 

                                        }

                                        echo html_entity_decode($this->Wand->highlight($content[$i], $query));
$viewFile = '/home/legalcrystal/app/View/Case/amp.ctp'
$dataForView = array(
	'title_for_layout' => 'Krushna Charan Mohanty Vs State of Orissa - Citation 531760 - Court Judgment | ',
	'desc' => array(
		'Judgement' => array(
			'id' => '531760',
			'acts' => '',
			'appealno' => '',
			'appellant' => 'Krushna Charan Mohanty',
			'authreffered' => '',
			'casename' => 'Krushna Charan Mohanty Vs. State of Orissa',
			'casenote' => ' - LABOUR & SERVICES 
Pay Scale:[Tarun Chatterjee & R.M. Lodha,JJ] Fixation - Orissa Service Code (1939), Rule 74(b)  Promotion - Government servant, by virtue of Rule 74(b), gets higher pay than what he was getting immediately before his promotion - Circular Dated 19.3.1983 modifying earlier Circular Dated 18.6.1982 resulting in  reduction of pay of employee on promotion  Held, It is not legal. Statutory Rules cannot be altered or amended by such Executive orders or Circulars or Instructions nor can they replace Statutory Rules.
 -  For better appreciation of the point in issue, Section 457 of the Code is extracted hereunder in extenso:',
			'caseanalysis' => null,
			'casesref' => 'M. S. Jaggi v. Subase;',
			'citingcases' => '',
			'counselplain' => '',
			'counseldef' => '',
			'court' => 'Orissa',
			'court_type' => 'HC',
			'decidedon' => '1988-09-12',
			'deposition' => '',
			'favorof' => null,
			'findings' => null,
			'judge' => 'G.B. Patnaik, J.',
			'judgement' => 'ORDER<p style="text-align: justify;">G.B. Patnaik, J.</p><p style="text-align: justify;">1. This application has been filed invoking the jurisdiction of this Court under Section 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, as the petitioner's application for release of the motor vehicle was rejected by the learned Magistrate and on revision, the said order of rejection has been affirmed,</p><p style="text-align: justify;">2. In connection with G.R. Case No. 232 of 1988 under Sections 436/323/427/379, Penal Code, a truck bearing registration under ORL 537 was seized by the Investigating Officer on 22-7-1988. The petitioner is admittedly the owner of the said truck. After the seizure, the petitioner filed an application invoking the jurisdiction of the Magistrate under Section 457 of the Code of Criminal Procedure for getting custody of the vehicle. The learned Magistrate rejected the said application solely on the ground that the case being one triable by Court of Session, he had no jurisdiction to deal with the application. The petitioner, therefore, carried a revision to the Court of Session. The learned Sessions Judge came to the conclusion that the Magistrate was in error to hold that in a case triable by Court of Session, the Magistrate has no jurisdiction under Section 457 for release of the seized property. In fact, the learned Sessions Judge has held that Section 457 of the Code does not put any embargo on a Magistrate to pass any order regarding disposal of the property involved in a case though triable by a Court of Session, but he has rejected the application on the ground that S .457 in terms cannot apply since the matter is still under investigation. In support of the aforesaid finding, the Sessions Judge has placed reliance on the decision of the Andhra Pradesh High Court in the case of State v. Smt. Syad Belouis Sultana (1986) 1 Crimes 177.</p><p style="text-align: justify;">3. The short question for consideration, therefore, is whether Section 487 of the Code can at all be attracted during the continuance of investigation and before filing of the charge-sheet or final form. Chapter XXXIV of the Code of Criminal Procedure deals with disposal of property. Section 451 contained therein deals with a situation when any property is produced in any criminal Court during any inquiry or trial and the court thinks it fit for passing appropriate order for proper custody of such property pending conclusion of the inquiry or trial. Section 452 deals with a situation where after conclusion of the trial, the Court can pass an order regarding disposal of the property in question. Section 457 is the only other section in the chapter dealing with disposal of property. For better appreciation of the point in issue, Section 457 of the Code is extracted hereunder in extenso:</p><p style="text-align: justify;">457. Procedure by police upon seizures of property:</p><p style="text-align: justify;">(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 property or the delivery of such property to the person entitled to the possession thereof, or if such person cannot be ascertained, respecting the custody and production of such property.</p><p style="text-align: justify;">(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.</p><p style="text-align: justify;">This section substantially corresponds to Section 523 of the Criminal Procedure Code, 1898. 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 any inquiry or trial, then the Magistrate gets jurisdiction under Section 487(1) to pass appropriate order for disposal of such property or for delivery of such property to ' the person entitled to the possession; thereof. If a literal meaning to the aforesaid provision is given, then though a property might have been seized by the police, yet until such seizure is reported to a Magistrate then the Magistrate will have no jurisdiction to pass any order under Section 457(1) of the Code. The learned Judge of the Andhra Pradesh High Court in deciding the case reported in (1986) 1 Crimes, 177, appears to have given the literal meaning to the words used in Section 457(1). But in my view such an interpretation would cause great injustice and there is no legislative intent behind giving the aforesaid interpretation. Placing of a report by the police before a Magistrate cannot be said to be a condition precedent for entertaining an application under Section 457. If the fact of seizure is brought to the notice of the Magistrate by any party interested or even, by a party who applies 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. In fact, this question has been lucidly discussed in the case of M. S. Jaggi v. Subase chandra Mohapatra (1977) 44 Cut LT 139 : 1977 Cri LJ 1902. After analysing the different provisions of the Code and considering Section 523 of the present Code, the learned Judge observed (at p. 1904):.Even though there be no provision in the Code obligating the police to report its seizure, nevertheless, if the factum of seizure is reported to the Magistrate by sources other than the police or the fact o f seizure otherwise comes to the knowledge of the Magistrate, he acquires jurisdiction under this section to pass appropriate orders in respect of the seized property. As in this case the factum of seizure was reported to him by the opposite party filing an application under Section 457, the Magistrate acquired jurisdiction to pass appropriate orders as he thought fit respecting the disposal of the seized property.</p><p style="text-align: justify;">In this view of the matter, the order of the learned Sessions Judge cannot be sustained and I would hold that the Magistrate had jurisdiction under Section 457 of the Code to pass appropriate order regarding release of the property and giving custody of the same.</p><p style="text-align: justify;">4. The next question for consideration would be as to on what terms the custody of the vehicle should be given to the petitioner who is admittedly the owner of the vehicle. This is a matter over which the Magistrate has not exercised his discretion since he illegally rejected the application as not being entertainable. Consequently, I think it appropriate to hold that the Magistrate should now consider the application filed by the petitioner and release the vehicle to the custody of the petitioner on such terms as he thinks fit in the facts and circumstances of the case.</p><p style="text-align: justify;">5. This Criminal Miscellaneous Application is accordingly allowed with the aforesaid direction and the petitioner may now appear before the learned Magistrate whereafter the Magistrate on hearing the petitioner would pass appropriate orders with regard to the terms for the release of the vehicle in favour of the petitioner.<p style="text-align: justify;"></p><p style="text-align: justify;">',
			'observations' => null,
			'overruledby' => null,
			'prhistory' => '',
			'pubs' => '66(1988)CLT816; 1989CriLJ1025',
			'ratiodecidendi' => '',
			'respondent' => 'State of Orissa',
			'sub' => 'Criminal',
			'link' => null,
			'circuit' => null
		)
	),
	'casename_url' => 'krushna-charan-mohanty-vs-state-orissa',
	'args' => array(
		(int) 0 => '531760',
		(int) 1 => 'krushna-charan-mohanty-vs-state-orissa'
	)
)
$title_for_layout = 'Krushna Charan Mohanty Vs State of Orissa - Citation 531760 - Court Judgment | '
$desc = array(
	'Judgement' => array(
		'id' => '531760',
		'acts' => '',
		'appealno' => '',
		'appellant' => 'Krushna Charan Mohanty',
		'authreffered' => '',
		'casename' => 'Krushna Charan Mohanty Vs. State of Orissa',
		'casenote' => ' - LABOUR & SERVICES 
Pay Scale:[Tarun Chatterjee & R.M. Lodha,JJ] Fixation - Orissa Service Code (1939), Rule 74(b)  Promotion - Government servant, by virtue of Rule 74(b), gets higher pay than what he was getting immediately before his promotion - Circular Dated 19.3.1983 modifying earlier Circular Dated 18.6.1982 resulting in  reduction of pay of employee on promotion  Held, It is not legal. Statutory Rules cannot be altered or amended by such Executive orders or Circulars or Instructions nor can they replace Statutory Rules.
 -  For better appreciation of the point in issue, Section 457 of the Code is extracted hereunder in extenso:',
		'caseanalysis' => null,
		'casesref' => 'M. S. Jaggi v. Subase;',
		'citingcases' => '',
		'counselplain' => '',
		'counseldef' => '',
		'court' => 'Orissa',
		'court_type' => 'HC',
		'decidedon' => '1988-09-12',
		'deposition' => '',
		'favorof' => null,
		'findings' => null,
		'judge' => 'G.B. Patnaik, J.',
		'judgement' => 'ORDER<p>G.B. Patnaik, J.</p><p>1. This application has been filed invoking the jurisdiction of this Court under Section 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, as the petitioner's application for release of the motor vehicle was rejected by the learned Magistrate and on revision, the said order of rejection has been affirmed,</p><p>2. In connection with G.R. Case No. 232 of 1988 under Sections 436/323/427/379, Penal Code, a truck bearing registration under ORL 537 was seized by the Investigating Officer on 22-7-1988. The petitioner is admittedly the owner of the said truck. After the seizure, the petitioner filed an application invoking the jurisdiction of the Magistrate under Section 457 of the Code of Criminal Procedure for getting custody of the vehicle. The learned Magistrate rejected the said application solely on the ground that the case being one triable by Court of Session, he had no jurisdiction to deal with the application. The petitioner, therefore, carried a revision to the Court of Session. The learned Sessions Judge came to the conclusion that the Magistrate was in error to hold that in a case triable by Court of Session, the Magistrate has no jurisdiction under Section 457 for release of the seized property. In fact, the learned Sessions Judge has held that Section 457 of the Code does not put any embargo on a Magistrate to pass any order regarding disposal of the property involved in a case though triable by a Court of Session, but he has rejected the application on the ground that S .457 in terms cannot apply since the matter is still under investigation. In support of the aforesaid finding, the Sessions Judge has placed reliance on the decision of the Andhra Pradesh High Court in the case of State v. Smt. Syad Belouis Sultana (1986) 1 Crimes 177.</p><p>3. The short question for consideration, therefore, is whether Section 487 of the Code can at all be attracted during the continuance of investigation and before filing of the charge-sheet or final form. Chapter XXXIV of the Code of Criminal Procedure deals with disposal of property. Section 451 contained therein deals with a situation when any property is produced in any criminal Court during any inquiry or trial and the court thinks it fit for passing appropriate order for proper custody of such property pending conclusion of the inquiry or trial. Section 452 deals with a situation where after conclusion of the trial, the Court can pass an order regarding disposal of the property in question. Section 457 is the only other section in the chapter dealing with disposal of property. For better appreciation of the point in issue, Section 457 of the Code is extracted hereunder in extenso:</p><p>457. Procedure by police upon seizures of property:</p><p>(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 property or the delivery of such property to the person entitled to the possession thereof, or if such person cannot be ascertained, respecting the custody and production of such property.</p><p>(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.</p><p>This section substantially corresponds to Section 523 of the Criminal Procedure Code, 1898. 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 any inquiry or trial, then the Magistrate gets jurisdiction under Section 487(1) to pass appropriate order for disposal of such property or for delivery of such property to ' the person entitled to the possession; thereof. If a literal meaning to the aforesaid provision is given, then though a property might have been seized by the police, yet until such seizure is reported to a Magistrate then the Magistrate will have no jurisdiction to pass any order under Section 457(1) of the Code. The learned Judge of the Andhra Pradesh High Court in deciding the case reported in (1986) 1 Crimes, 177, appears to have given the literal meaning to the words used in Section 457(1). But in my view such an interpretation would cause great injustice and there is no legislative intent behind giving the aforesaid interpretation. Placing of a report by the police before a Magistrate cannot be said to be a condition precedent for entertaining an application under Section 457. If the fact of seizure is brought to the notice of the Magistrate by any party interested or even, by a party who applies 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. In fact, this question has been lucidly discussed in the case of M. S. Jaggi v. Subase chandra Mohapatra (1977) 44 Cut LT 139 : 1977 Cri LJ 1902. After analysing the different provisions of the Code and considering Section 523 of the present Code, the learned Judge observed (at p. 1904):.Even though there be no provision in the Code obligating the police to report its seizure, nevertheless, if the factum of seizure is reported to the Magistrate by sources other than the police or the fact o f seizure otherwise comes to the knowledge of the Magistrate, he acquires jurisdiction under this section to pass appropriate orders in respect of the seized property. As in this case the factum of seizure was reported to him by the opposite party filing an application under Section 457, the Magistrate acquired jurisdiction to pass appropriate orders as he thought fit respecting the disposal of the seized property.</p><p>In this view of the matter, the order of the learned Sessions Judge cannot be sustained and I would hold that the Magistrate had jurisdiction under Section 457 of the Code to pass appropriate order regarding release of the property and giving custody of the same.</p><p>4. The next question for consideration would be as to on what terms the custody of the vehicle should be given to the petitioner who is admittedly the owner of the vehicle. This is a matter over which the Magistrate has not exercised his discretion since he illegally rejected the application as not being entertainable. Consequently, I think it appropriate to hold that the Magistrate should now consider the application filed by the petitioner and release the vehicle to the custody of the petitioner on such terms as he thinks fit in the facts and circumstances of the case.</p><p>5. This Criminal Miscellaneous Application is accordingly allowed with the aforesaid direction and the petitioner may now appear before the learned Magistrate whereafter the Magistrate on hearing the petitioner would pass appropriate orders with regard to the terms for the release of the vehicle in favour of the petitioner.<p></p><p>',
		'observations' => null,
		'overruledby' => null,
		'prhistory' => '',
		'pubs' => '66(1988)CLT816; 1989CriLJ1025',
		'ratiodecidendi' => '',
		'respondent' => 'State of Orissa',
		'sub' => 'Criminal',
		'link' => null,
		'circuit' => null
	)
)
$casename_url = 'krushna-charan-mohanty-vs-state-orissa'
$args = array(
	(int) 0 => '531760',
	(int) 1 => 'krushna-charan-mohanty-vs-state-orissa'
)
$url = 'https://sooperkanoon.com/case/amp/531760/krushna-charan-mohanty-vs-state-orissa'
$ctype = ' High Court'
$caseref = 'M. S. Jaggi v. Subase<br>'
$content = array(
	(int) 0 => 'ORDER<p>G.B. Patnaik, J.',
	(int) 1 => '<p>1. This application has been filed invoking the jurisdiction of this Court under Section 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, as the petitioner's application for release of the motor vehicle was rejected by the learned Magistrate and on revision, the said order of rejection has been affirmed,',
	(int) 2 => '<p>2. In connection with G.R. Case No. 232 of 1988 under Sections 436/323/427/379, Penal Code, a truck bearing registration under ORL 537 was seized by the Investigating Officer on 22-7-1988. The petitioner is admittedly the owner of the said truck. After the seizure, the petitioner filed an application invoking the jurisdiction of the Magistrate under Section 457 of the Code of Criminal Procedure for getting custody of the vehicle. The learned Magistrate rejected the said application solely on the ground that the case being one triable by Court of Session, he had no jurisdiction to deal with the application. The petitioner, therefore, carried a revision to the Court of Session. The learned Sessions Judge came to the conclusion that the Magistrate was in error to hold that in a case triable by Court of Session, the Magistrate has no jurisdiction under Section 457 for release of the seized property. In fact, the learned Sessions Judge has held that Section 457 of the Code does not put any embargo on a Magistrate to pass any order regarding disposal of the property involved in a case though triable by a Court of Session, but he has rejected the application on the ground that S .457 in terms cannot apply since the matter is still under investigation. In support of the aforesaid finding, the Sessions Judge has placed reliance on the decision of the Andhra Pradesh High Court in the case of State v. Smt. Syad Belouis Sultana (1986) 1 Crimes 177.',
	(int) 3 => '<p>3. The short question for consideration, therefore, is whether Section 487 of the Code can at all be attracted during the continuance of investigation and before filing of the charge-sheet or final form. Chapter XXXIV of the Code of Criminal Procedure deals with disposal of property. Section 451 contained therein deals with a situation when any property is produced in any criminal Court during any inquiry or trial and the court thinks it fit for passing appropriate order for proper custody of such property pending conclusion of the inquiry or trial. Section 452 deals with a situation where after conclusion of the trial, the Court can pass an order regarding disposal of the property in question. Section 457 is the only other section in the chapter dealing with disposal of property. For better appreciation of the point in issue, Section 457 of the Code is extracted hereunder in extenso:',
	(int) 4 => '<p>457. Procedure by police upon seizures of property:',
	(int) 5 => '<p>(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 property or the delivery of such property to the person entitled to the possession thereof, or if such person cannot be ascertained, respecting the custody and production of such property.',
	(int) 6 => '<p>(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.',
	(int) 7 => '<p>This section substantially corresponds to Section 523 of the Criminal Procedure Code, 1898. 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 any inquiry or trial, then the Magistrate gets jurisdiction under Section 487(1) to pass appropriate order for disposal of such property or for delivery of such property to ' the person entitled to the possession; thereof. If a literal meaning to the aforesaid provision is given, then though a property might have been seized by the police, yet until such seizure is reported to a Magistrate then the Magistrate will have no jurisdiction to pass any order under Section 457(1) of the Code. The learned Judge of the Andhra Pradesh High Court in deciding the case reported in (1986) 1 Crimes, 177, appears to have given the literal meaning to the words used in Section 457(1). But in my view such an interpretation would cause great injustice and there is no legislative intent behind giving the aforesaid interpretation. Placing of a report by the police before a Magistrate cannot be said to be a condition precedent for entertaining an application under Section 457. If the fact of seizure is brought to the notice of the Magistrate by any party interested or even, by a party who applies 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. In fact, this question has been lucidly discussed in the case of M. S. Jaggi v. Subase chandra Mohapatra (1977) 44 Cut LT 139 : 1977 Cri LJ 1902. After analysing the different provisions of the Code and considering Section 523 of the present Code, the learned Judge observed (at p. 1904):.Even though there be no provision in the Code obligating the police to report its seizure, nevertheless, if the factum of seizure is reported to the Magistrate by sources other than the police or the fact o f seizure otherwise comes to the knowledge of the Magistrate, he acquires jurisdiction under this section to pass appropriate orders in respect of the seized property. As in this case the factum of seizure was reported to him by the opposite party filing an application under Section 457, the Magistrate acquired jurisdiction to pass appropriate orders as he thought fit respecting the disposal of the seized property.',
	(int) 8 => '<p>In this view of the matter, the order of the learned Sessions Judge cannot be sustained and I would hold that the Magistrate had jurisdiction under Section 457 of the Code to pass appropriate order regarding release of the property and giving custody of the same.',
	(int) 9 => '<p>4. The next question for consideration would be as to on what terms the custody of the vehicle should be given to the petitioner who is admittedly the owner of the vehicle. This is a matter over which the Magistrate has not exercised his discretion since he illegally rejected the application as not being entertainable. Consequently, I think it appropriate to hold that the Magistrate should now consider the application filed by the petitioner and release the vehicle to the custody of the petitioner on such terms as he thinks fit in the facts and circumstances of the case.',
	(int) 10 => '<p>5. This Criminal Miscellaneous Application is accordingly allowed with the aforesaid direction and the petitioner may now appear before the learned Magistrate whereafter the Magistrate on hearing the petitioner would pass appropriate orders with regard to the terms for the release of the vehicle in favour of the petitioner.<p>',
	(int) 11 => '<p>'
)
$paragraphAfter = (int) 1
$cnt = (int) 12
$i = (int) 7
include - APP/View/Case/amp.ctp, line 144
View::_evaluate() - CORE/Cake/View/View.php, line 971
View::_render() - CORE/Cake/View/View.php, line 933
View::render() - CORE/Cake/View/View.php, line 473
Controller::render() - CORE/Cake/Controller/Controller.php, line 963
Dispatcher::_invoke() - CORE/Cake/Routing/Dispatcher.php, line 200
Dispatcher::dispatch() - CORE/Cake/Routing/Dispatcher.php, line 167
[main] - APP/webroot/index.php, line 109

This section substantially corresponds to Section 523 of the Criminal Procedure Code, 1898. 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 any inquiry or trial, then the Magistrate gets jurisdiction under Section 487(1) to pass appropriate order for disposal of such property or for delivery of such property to ' the person entitled to the possession; thereof. If a literal meaning to the aforesaid provision is given, then though a property might have been seized by the police, yet until such seizure is reported to a Magistrate then the Magistrate will have no jurisdiction to pass any order under Section 457(1) of the Code. The learned Judge of the Andhra Pradesh High Court in deciding the case reported in (1986) 1 Crimes, 177, appears to have given the literal meaning to the words used in Section 457(1). But in my view such an interpretation would cause great injustice and there is no legislative intent behind giving the aforesaid interpretation. Placing of a report by the police before a Magistrate cannot be said to be a condition precedent for entertaining an application under Section 457. If the fact of seizure is brought to the notice of the Magistrate by any party interested or even, by a party who applies 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. In fact, this question has been lucidly discussed in the case of M. S. Jaggi v. Subase chandra Mohapatra (1977) 44 Cut LT 139 : 1977 Cri LJ 1902. After analysing the different provisions of the Code and considering Section 523 of the present Code, the learned Judge observed (at p. 1904):.Even though there be no provision in the Code obligating the police to report its seizure, nevertheless, if the factum of seizure is reported to the Magistrate by sources other than the police or the fact o f seizure otherwise comes to the knowledge of the Magistrate, he acquires jurisdiction under this section to pass appropriate orders in respect of the seized property. As in this case the factum of seizure was reported to him by the opposite party filing an application under Section 457, the Magistrate acquired jurisdiction to pass appropriate orders as he thought fit respecting the disposal of the seized property.

Notice (8): Undefined variable: query [APP/View/Case/amp.ctp, line 144]
Code Context
                                         echo $this->Adsense->display('responsive_rect'); 

                                        }

                                        echo html_entity_decode($this->Wand->highlight($content[$i], $query));
$viewFile = '/home/legalcrystal/app/View/Case/amp.ctp'
$dataForView = array(
	'title_for_layout' => 'Krushna Charan Mohanty Vs State of Orissa - Citation 531760 - Court Judgment | ',
	'desc' => array(
		'Judgement' => array(
			'id' => '531760',
			'acts' => '',
			'appealno' => '',
			'appellant' => 'Krushna Charan Mohanty',
			'authreffered' => '',
			'casename' => 'Krushna Charan Mohanty Vs. State of Orissa',
			'casenote' => ' - LABOUR & SERVICES 
Pay Scale:[Tarun Chatterjee & R.M. Lodha,JJ] Fixation - Orissa Service Code (1939), Rule 74(b)  Promotion - Government servant, by virtue of Rule 74(b), gets higher pay than what he was getting immediately before his promotion - Circular Dated 19.3.1983 modifying earlier Circular Dated 18.6.1982 resulting in  reduction of pay of employee on promotion  Held, It is not legal. Statutory Rules cannot be altered or amended by such Executive orders or Circulars or Instructions nor can they replace Statutory Rules.
 -  For better appreciation of the point in issue, Section 457 of the Code is extracted hereunder in extenso:',
			'caseanalysis' => null,
			'casesref' => 'M. S. Jaggi v. Subase;',
			'citingcases' => '',
			'counselplain' => '',
			'counseldef' => '',
			'court' => 'Orissa',
			'court_type' => 'HC',
			'decidedon' => '1988-09-12',
			'deposition' => '',
			'favorof' => null,
			'findings' => null,
			'judge' => 'G.B. Patnaik, J.',
			'judgement' => 'ORDER<p style="text-align: justify;">G.B. Patnaik, J.</p><p style="text-align: justify;">1. This application has been filed invoking the jurisdiction of this Court under Section 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, as the petitioner's application for release of the motor vehicle was rejected by the learned Magistrate and on revision, the said order of rejection has been affirmed,</p><p style="text-align: justify;">2. In connection with G.R. Case No. 232 of 1988 under Sections 436/323/427/379, Penal Code, a truck bearing registration under ORL 537 was seized by the Investigating Officer on 22-7-1988. The petitioner is admittedly the owner of the said truck. After the seizure, the petitioner filed an application invoking the jurisdiction of the Magistrate under Section 457 of the Code of Criminal Procedure for getting custody of the vehicle. The learned Magistrate rejected the said application solely on the ground that the case being one triable by Court of Session, he had no jurisdiction to deal with the application. The petitioner, therefore, carried a revision to the Court of Session. The learned Sessions Judge came to the conclusion that the Magistrate was in error to hold that in a case triable by Court of Session, the Magistrate has no jurisdiction under Section 457 for release of the seized property. In fact, the learned Sessions Judge has held that Section 457 of the Code does not put any embargo on a Magistrate to pass any order regarding disposal of the property involved in a case though triable by a Court of Session, but he has rejected the application on the ground that S .457 in terms cannot apply since the matter is still under investigation. In support of the aforesaid finding, the Sessions Judge has placed reliance on the decision of the Andhra Pradesh High Court in the case of State v. Smt. Syad Belouis Sultana (1986) 1 Crimes 177.</p><p style="text-align: justify;">3. The short question for consideration, therefore, is whether Section 487 of the Code can at all be attracted during the continuance of investigation and before filing of the charge-sheet or final form. Chapter XXXIV of the Code of Criminal Procedure deals with disposal of property. Section 451 contained therein deals with a situation when any property is produced in any criminal Court during any inquiry or trial and the court thinks it fit for passing appropriate order for proper custody of such property pending conclusion of the inquiry or trial. Section 452 deals with a situation where after conclusion of the trial, the Court can pass an order regarding disposal of the property in question. Section 457 is the only other section in the chapter dealing with disposal of property. For better appreciation of the point in issue, Section 457 of the Code is extracted hereunder in extenso:</p><p style="text-align: justify;">457. Procedure by police upon seizures of property:</p><p style="text-align: justify;">(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 property or the delivery of such property to the person entitled to the possession thereof, or if such person cannot be ascertained, respecting the custody and production of such property.</p><p style="text-align: justify;">(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.</p><p style="text-align: justify;">This section substantially corresponds to Section 523 of the Criminal Procedure Code, 1898. 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 any inquiry or trial, then the Magistrate gets jurisdiction under Section 487(1) to pass appropriate order for disposal of such property or for delivery of such property to ' the person entitled to the possession; thereof. If a literal meaning to the aforesaid provision is given, then though a property might have been seized by the police, yet until such seizure is reported to a Magistrate then the Magistrate will have no jurisdiction to pass any order under Section 457(1) of the Code. The learned Judge of the Andhra Pradesh High Court in deciding the case reported in (1986) 1 Crimes, 177, appears to have given the literal meaning to the words used in Section 457(1). But in my view such an interpretation would cause great injustice and there is no legislative intent behind giving the aforesaid interpretation. Placing of a report by the police before a Magistrate cannot be said to be a condition precedent for entertaining an application under Section 457. If the fact of seizure is brought to the notice of the Magistrate by any party interested or even, by a party who applies 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. In fact, this question has been lucidly discussed in the case of M. S. Jaggi v. Subase chandra Mohapatra (1977) 44 Cut LT 139 : 1977 Cri LJ 1902. After analysing the different provisions of the Code and considering Section 523 of the present Code, the learned Judge observed (at p. 1904):.Even though there be no provision in the Code obligating the police to report its seizure, nevertheless, if the factum of seizure is reported to the Magistrate by sources other than the police or the fact o f seizure otherwise comes to the knowledge of the Magistrate, he acquires jurisdiction under this section to pass appropriate orders in respect of the seized property. As in this case the factum of seizure was reported to him by the opposite party filing an application under Section 457, the Magistrate acquired jurisdiction to pass appropriate orders as he thought fit respecting the disposal of the seized property.</p><p style="text-align: justify;">In this view of the matter, the order of the learned Sessions Judge cannot be sustained and I would hold that the Magistrate had jurisdiction under Section 457 of the Code to pass appropriate order regarding release of the property and giving custody of the same.</p><p style="text-align: justify;">4. The next question for consideration would be as to on what terms the custody of the vehicle should be given to the petitioner who is admittedly the owner of the vehicle. This is a matter over which the Magistrate has not exercised his discretion since he illegally rejected the application as not being entertainable. Consequently, I think it appropriate to hold that the Magistrate should now consider the application filed by the petitioner and release the vehicle to the custody of the petitioner on such terms as he thinks fit in the facts and circumstances of the case.</p><p style="text-align: justify;">5. This Criminal Miscellaneous Application is accordingly allowed with the aforesaid direction and the petitioner may now appear before the learned Magistrate whereafter the Magistrate on hearing the petitioner would pass appropriate orders with regard to the terms for the release of the vehicle in favour of the petitioner.<p style="text-align: justify;"></p><p style="text-align: justify;">',
			'observations' => null,
			'overruledby' => null,
			'prhistory' => '',
			'pubs' => '66(1988)CLT816; 1989CriLJ1025',
			'ratiodecidendi' => '',
			'respondent' => 'State of Orissa',
			'sub' => 'Criminal',
			'link' => null,
			'circuit' => null
		)
	),
	'casename_url' => 'krushna-charan-mohanty-vs-state-orissa',
	'args' => array(
		(int) 0 => '531760',
		(int) 1 => 'krushna-charan-mohanty-vs-state-orissa'
	)
)
$title_for_layout = 'Krushna Charan Mohanty Vs State of Orissa - Citation 531760 - Court Judgment | '
$desc = array(
	'Judgement' => array(
		'id' => '531760',
		'acts' => '',
		'appealno' => '',
		'appellant' => 'Krushna Charan Mohanty',
		'authreffered' => '',
		'casename' => 'Krushna Charan Mohanty Vs. State of Orissa',
		'casenote' => ' - LABOUR & SERVICES 
Pay Scale:[Tarun Chatterjee & R.M. Lodha,JJ] Fixation - Orissa Service Code (1939), Rule 74(b)  Promotion - Government servant, by virtue of Rule 74(b), gets higher pay than what he was getting immediately before his promotion - Circular Dated 19.3.1983 modifying earlier Circular Dated 18.6.1982 resulting in  reduction of pay of employee on promotion  Held, It is not legal. Statutory Rules cannot be altered or amended by such Executive orders or Circulars or Instructions nor can they replace Statutory Rules.
 -  For better appreciation of the point in issue, Section 457 of the Code is extracted hereunder in extenso:',
		'caseanalysis' => null,
		'casesref' => 'M. S. Jaggi v. Subase;',
		'citingcases' => '',
		'counselplain' => '',
		'counseldef' => '',
		'court' => 'Orissa',
		'court_type' => 'HC',
		'decidedon' => '1988-09-12',
		'deposition' => '',
		'favorof' => null,
		'findings' => null,
		'judge' => 'G.B. Patnaik, J.',
		'judgement' => 'ORDER<p>G.B. Patnaik, J.</p><p>1. This application has been filed invoking the jurisdiction of this Court under Section 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, as the petitioner's application for release of the motor vehicle was rejected by the learned Magistrate and on revision, the said order of rejection has been affirmed,</p><p>2. In connection with G.R. Case No. 232 of 1988 under Sections 436/323/427/379, Penal Code, a truck bearing registration under ORL 537 was seized by the Investigating Officer on 22-7-1988. The petitioner is admittedly the owner of the said truck. After the seizure, the petitioner filed an application invoking the jurisdiction of the Magistrate under Section 457 of the Code of Criminal Procedure for getting custody of the vehicle. The learned Magistrate rejected the said application solely on the ground that the case being one triable by Court of Session, he had no jurisdiction to deal with the application. The petitioner, therefore, carried a revision to the Court of Session. The learned Sessions Judge came to the conclusion that the Magistrate was in error to hold that in a case triable by Court of Session, the Magistrate has no jurisdiction under Section 457 for release of the seized property. In fact, the learned Sessions Judge has held that Section 457 of the Code does not put any embargo on a Magistrate to pass any order regarding disposal of the property involved in a case though triable by a Court of Session, but he has rejected the application on the ground that S .457 in terms cannot apply since the matter is still under investigation. In support of the aforesaid finding, the Sessions Judge has placed reliance on the decision of the Andhra Pradesh High Court in the case of State v. Smt. Syad Belouis Sultana (1986) 1 Crimes 177.</p><p>3. The short question for consideration, therefore, is whether Section 487 of the Code can at all be attracted during the continuance of investigation and before filing of the charge-sheet or final form. Chapter XXXIV of the Code of Criminal Procedure deals with disposal of property. Section 451 contained therein deals with a situation when any property is produced in any criminal Court during any inquiry or trial and the court thinks it fit for passing appropriate order for proper custody of such property pending conclusion of the inquiry or trial. Section 452 deals with a situation where after conclusion of the trial, the Court can pass an order regarding disposal of the property in question. Section 457 is the only other section in the chapter dealing with disposal of property. For better appreciation of the point in issue, Section 457 of the Code is extracted hereunder in extenso:</p><p>457. Procedure by police upon seizures of property:</p><p>(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 property or the delivery of such property to the person entitled to the possession thereof, or if such person cannot be ascertained, respecting the custody and production of such property.</p><p>(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.</p><p>This section substantially corresponds to Section 523 of the Criminal Procedure Code, 1898. 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 any inquiry or trial, then the Magistrate gets jurisdiction under Section 487(1) to pass appropriate order for disposal of such property or for delivery of such property to ' the person entitled to the possession; thereof. If a literal meaning to the aforesaid provision is given, then though a property might have been seized by the police, yet until such seizure is reported to a Magistrate then the Magistrate will have no jurisdiction to pass any order under Section 457(1) of the Code. The learned Judge of the Andhra Pradesh High Court in deciding the case reported in (1986) 1 Crimes, 177, appears to have given the literal meaning to the words used in Section 457(1). But in my view such an interpretation would cause great injustice and there is no legislative intent behind giving the aforesaid interpretation. Placing of a report by the police before a Magistrate cannot be said to be a condition precedent for entertaining an application under Section 457. If the fact of seizure is brought to the notice of the Magistrate by any party interested or even, by a party who applies 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. In fact, this question has been lucidly discussed in the case of M. S. Jaggi v. Subase chandra Mohapatra (1977) 44 Cut LT 139 : 1977 Cri LJ 1902. After analysing the different provisions of the Code and considering Section 523 of the present Code, the learned Judge observed (at p. 1904):.Even though there be no provision in the Code obligating the police to report its seizure, nevertheless, if the factum of seizure is reported to the Magistrate by sources other than the police or the fact o f seizure otherwise comes to the knowledge of the Magistrate, he acquires jurisdiction under this section to pass appropriate orders in respect of the seized property. As in this case the factum of seizure was reported to him by the opposite party filing an application under Section 457, the Magistrate acquired jurisdiction to pass appropriate orders as he thought fit respecting the disposal of the seized property.</p><p>In this view of the matter, the order of the learned Sessions Judge cannot be sustained and I would hold that the Magistrate had jurisdiction under Section 457 of the Code to pass appropriate order regarding release of the property and giving custody of the same.</p><p>4. The next question for consideration would be as to on what terms the custody of the vehicle should be given to the petitioner who is admittedly the owner of the vehicle. This is a matter over which the Magistrate has not exercised his discretion since he illegally rejected the application as not being entertainable. Consequently, I think it appropriate to hold that the Magistrate should now consider the application filed by the petitioner and release the vehicle to the custody of the petitioner on such terms as he thinks fit in the facts and circumstances of the case.</p><p>5. This Criminal Miscellaneous Application is accordingly allowed with the aforesaid direction and the petitioner may now appear before the learned Magistrate whereafter the Magistrate on hearing the petitioner would pass appropriate orders with regard to the terms for the release of the vehicle in favour of the petitioner.<p></p><p>',
		'observations' => null,
		'overruledby' => null,
		'prhistory' => '',
		'pubs' => '66(1988)CLT816; 1989CriLJ1025',
		'ratiodecidendi' => '',
		'respondent' => 'State of Orissa',
		'sub' => 'Criminal',
		'link' => null,
		'circuit' => null
	)
)
$casename_url = 'krushna-charan-mohanty-vs-state-orissa'
$args = array(
	(int) 0 => '531760',
	(int) 1 => 'krushna-charan-mohanty-vs-state-orissa'
)
$url = 'https://sooperkanoon.com/case/amp/531760/krushna-charan-mohanty-vs-state-orissa'
$ctype = ' High Court'
$caseref = 'M. S. Jaggi v. Subase<br>'
$content = array(
	(int) 0 => 'ORDER<p>G.B. Patnaik, J.',
	(int) 1 => '<p>1. This application has been filed invoking the jurisdiction of this Court under Section 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, as the petitioner's application for release of the motor vehicle was rejected by the learned Magistrate and on revision, the said order of rejection has been affirmed,',
	(int) 2 => '<p>2. In connection with G.R. Case No. 232 of 1988 under Sections 436/323/427/379, Penal Code, a truck bearing registration under ORL 537 was seized by the Investigating Officer on 22-7-1988. The petitioner is admittedly the owner of the said truck. After the seizure, the petitioner filed an application invoking the jurisdiction of the Magistrate under Section 457 of the Code of Criminal Procedure for getting custody of the vehicle. The learned Magistrate rejected the said application solely on the ground that the case being one triable by Court of Session, he had no jurisdiction to deal with the application. The petitioner, therefore, carried a revision to the Court of Session. The learned Sessions Judge came to the conclusion that the Magistrate was in error to hold that in a case triable by Court of Session, the Magistrate has no jurisdiction under Section 457 for release of the seized property. In fact, the learned Sessions Judge has held that Section 457 of the Code does not put any embargo on a Magistrate to pass any order regarding disposal of the property involved in a case though triable by a Court of Session, but he has rejected the application on the ground that S .457 in terms cannot apply since the matter is still under investigation. In support of the aforesaid finding, the Sessions Judge has placed reliance on the decision of the Andhra Pradesh High Court in the case of State v. Smt. Syad Belouis Sultana (1986) 1 Crimes 177.',
	(int) 3 => '<p>3. The short question for consideration, therefore, is whether Section 487 of the Code can at all be attracted during the continuance of investigation and before filing of the charge-sheet or final form. Chapter XXXIV of the Code of Criminal Procedure deals with disposal of property. Section 451 contained therein deals with a situation when any property is produced in any criminal Court during any inquiry or trial and the court thinks it fit for passing appropriate order for proper custody of such property pending conclusion of the inquiry or trial. Section 452 deals with a situation where after conclusion of the trial, the Court can pass an order regarding disposal of the property in question. Section 457 is the only other section in the chapter dealing with disposal of property. For better appreciation of the point in issue, Section 457 of the Code is extracted hereunder in extenso:',
	(int) 4 => '<p>457. Procedure by police upon seizures of property:',
	(int) 5 => '<p>(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 property or the delivery of such property to the person entitled to the possession thereof, or if such person cannot be ascertained, respecting the custody and production of such property.',
	(int) 6 => '<p>(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.',
	(int) 7 => '<p>This section substantially corresponds to Section 523 of the Criminal Procedure Code, 1898. 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 any inquiry or trial, then the Magistrate gets jurisdiction under Section 487(1) to pass appropriate order for disposal of such property or for delivery of such property to ' the person entitled to the possession; thereof. If a literal meaning to the aforesaid provision is given, then though a property might have been seized by the police, yet until such seizure is reported to a Magistrate then the Magistrate will have no jurisdiction to pass any order under Section 457(1) of the Code. The learned Judge of the Andhra Pradesh High Court in deciding the case reported in (1986) 1 Crimes, 177, appears to have given the literal meaning to the words used in Section 457(1). But in my view such an interpretation would cause great injustice and there is no legislative intent behind giving the aforesaid interpretation. Placing of a report by the police before a Magistrate cannot be said to be a condition precedent for entertaining an application under Section 457. If the fact of seizure is brought to the notice of the Magistrate by any party interested or even, by a party who applies 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. In fact, this question has been lucidly discussed in the case of M. S. Jaggi v. Subase chandra Mohapatra (1977) 44 Cut LT 139 : 1977 Cri LJ 1902. After analysing the different provisions of the Code and considering Section 523 of the present Code, the learned Judge observed (at p. 1904):.Even though there be no provision in the Code obligating the police to report its seizure, nevertheless, if the factum of seizure is reported to the Magistrate by sources other than the police or the fact o f seizure otherwise comes to the knowledge of the Magistrate, he acquires jurisdiction under this section to pass appropriate orders in respect of the seized property. As in this case the factum of seizure was reported to him by the opposite party filing an application under Section 457, the Magistrate acquired jurisdiction to pass appropriate orders as he thought fit respecting the disposal of the seized property.',
	(int) 8 => '<p>In this view of the matter, the order of the learned Sessions Judge cannot be sustained and I would hold that the Magistrate had jurisdiction under Section 457 of the Code to pass appropriate order regarding release of the property and giving custody of the same.',
	(int) 9 => '<p>4. The next question for consideration would be as to on what terms the custody of the vehicle should be given to the petitioner who is admittedly the owner of the vehicle. This is a matter over which the Magistrate has not exercised his discretion since he illegally rejected the application as not being entertainable. Consequently, I think it appropriate to hold that the Magistrate should now consider the application filed by the petitioner and release the vehicle to the custody of the petitioner on such terms as he thinks fit in the facts and circumstances of the case.',
	(int) 10 => '<p>5. This Criminal Miscellaneous Application is accordingly allowed with the aforesaid direction and the petitioner may now appear before the learned Magistrate whereafter the Magistrate on hearing the petitioner would pass appropriate orders with regard to the terms for the release of the vehicle in favour of the petitioner.<p>',
	(int) 11 => '<p>'
)
$paragraphAfter = (int) 1
$cnt = (int) 12
$i = (int) 8
include - APP/View/Case/amp.ctp, line 144
View::_evaluate() - CORE/Cake/View/View.php, line 971
View::_render() - CORE/Cake/View/View.php, line 933
View::render() - CORE/Cake/View/View.php, line 473
Controller::render() - CORE/Cake/Controller/Controller.php, line 963
Dispatcher::_invoke() - CORE/Cake/Routing/Dispatcher.php, line 200
Dispatcher::dispatch() - CORE/Cake/Routing/Dispatcher.php, line 167
[main] - APP/webroot/index.php, line 109

In this view of the matter, the order of the learned Sessions Judge cannot be sustained and I would hold that the Magistrate had jurisdiction under Section 457 of the Code to pass appropriate order regarding release of the property and giving custody of the same.

Notice (8): Undefined variable: query [APP/View/Case/amp.ctp, line 144]
Code Context
                                         echo $this->Adsense->display('responsive_rect'); 

                                        }

                                        echo html_entity_decode($this->Wand->highlight($content[$i], $query));
$viewFile = '/home/legalcrystal/app/View/Case/amp.ctp'
$dataForView = array(
	'title_for_layout' => 'Krushna Charan Mohanty Vs State of Orissa - Citation 531760 - Court Judgment | ',
	'desc' => array(
		'Judgement' => array(
			'id' => '531760',
			'acts' => '',
			'appealno' => '',
			'appellant' => 'Krushna Charan Mohanty',
			'authreffered' => '',
			'casename' => 'Krushna Charan Mohanty Vs. State of Orissa',
			'casenote' => ' - LABOUR & SERVICES 
Pay Scale:[Tarun Chatterjee & R.M. Lodha,JJ] Fixation - Orissa Service Code (1939), Rule 74(b)  Promotion - Government servant, by virtue of Rule 74(b), gets higher pay than what he was getting immediately before his promotion - Circular Dated 19.3.1983 modifying earlier Circular Dated 18.6.1982 resulting in  reduction of pay of employee on promotion  Held, It is not legal. Statutory Rules cannot be altered or amended by such Executive orders or Circulars or Instructions nor can they replace Statutory Rules.
 -  For better appreciation of the point in issue, Section 457 of the Code is extracted hereunder in extenso:',
			'caseanalysis' => null,
			'casesref' => 'M. S. Jaggi v. Subase;',
			'citingcases' => '',
			'counselplain' => '',
			'counseldef' => '',
			'court' => 'Orissa',
			'court_type' => 'HC',
			'decidedon' => '1988-09-12',
			'deposition' => '',
			'favorof' => null,
			'findings' => null,
			'judge' => 'G.B. Patnaik, J.',
			'judgement' => 'ORDER<p style="text-align: justify;">G.B. Patnaik, J.</p><p style="text-align: justify;">1. This application has been filed invoking the jurisdiction of this Court under Section 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, as the petitioner's application for release of the motor vehicle was rejected by the learned Magistrate and on revision, the said order of rejection has been affirmed,</p><p style="text-align: justify;">2. In connection with G.R. Case No. 232 of 1988 under Sections 436/323/427/379, Penal Code, a truck bearing registration under ORL 537 was seized by the Investigating Officer on 22-7-1988. The petitioner is admittedly the owner of the said truck. After the seizure, the petitioner filed an application invoking the jurisdiction of the Magistrate under Section 457 of the Code of Criminal Procedure for getting custody of the vehicle. The learned Magistrate rejected the said application solely on the ground that the case being one triable by Court of Session, he had no jurisdiction to deal with the application. The petitioner, therefore, carried a revision to the Court of Session. The learned Sessions Judge came to the conclusion that the Magistrate was in error to hold that in a case triable by Court of Session, the Magistrate has no jurisdiction under Section 457 for release of the seized property. In fact, the learned Sessions Judge has held that Section 457 of the Code does not put any embargo on a Magistrate to pass any order regarding disposal of the property involved in a case though triable by a Court of Session, but he has rejected the application on the ground that S .457 in terms cannot apply since the matter is still under investigation. In support of the aforesaid finding, the Sessions Judge has placed reliance on the decision of the Andhra Pradesh High Court in the case of State v. Smt. Syad Belouis Sultana (1986) 1 Crimes 177.</p><p style="text-align: justify;">3. The short question for consideration, therefore, is whether Section 487 of the Code can at all be attracted during the continuance of investigation and before filing of the charge-sheet or final form. Chapter XXXIV of the Code of Criminal Procedure deals with disposal of property. Section 451 contained therein deals with a situation when any property is produced in any criminal Court during any inquiry or trial and the court thinks it fit for passing appropriate order for proper custody of such property pending conclusion of the inquiry or trial. Section 452 deals with a situation where after conclusion of the trial, the Court can pass an order regarding disposal of the property in question. Section 457 is the only other section in the chapter dealing with disposal of property. For better appreciation of the point in issue, Section 457 of the Code is extracted hereunder in extenso:</p><p style="text-align: justify;">457. Procedure by police upon seizures of property:</p><p style="text-align: justify;">(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 property or the delivery of such property to the person entitled to the possession thereof, or if such person cannot be ascertained, respecting the custody and production of such property.</p><p style="text-align: justify;">(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.</p><p style="text-align: justify;">This section substantially corresponds to Section 523 of the Criminal Procedure Code, 1898. 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 any inquiry or trial, then the Magistrate gets jurisdiction under Section 487(1) to pass appropriate order for disposal of such property or for delivery of such property to ' the person entitled to the possession; thereof. If a literal meaning to the aforesaid provision is given, then though a property might have been seized by the police, yet until such seizure is reported to a Magistrate then the Magistrate will have no jurisdiction to pass any order under Section 457(1) of the Code. The learned Judge of the Andhra Pradesh High Court in deciding the case reported in (1986) 1 Crimes, 177, appears to have given the literal meaning to the words used in Section 457(1). But in my view such an interpretation would cause great injustice and there is no legislative intent behind giving the aforesaid interpretation. Placing of a report by the police before a Magistrate cannot be said to be a condition precedent for entertaining an application under Section 457. If the fact of seizure is brought to the notice of the Magistrate by any party interested or even, by a party who applies 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. In fact, this question has been lucidly discussed in the case of M. S. Jaggi v. Subase chandra Mohapatra (1977) 44 Cut LT 139 : 1977 Cri LJ 1902. After analysing the different provisions of the Code and considering Section 523 of the present Code, the learned Judge observed (at p. 1904):.Even though there be no provision in the Code obligating the police to report its seizure, nevertheless, if the factum of seizure is reported to the Magistrate by sources other than the police or the fact o f seizure otherwise comes to the knowledge of the Magistrate, he acquires jurisdiction under this section to pass appropriate orders in respect of the seized property. As in this case the factum of seizure was reported to him by the opposite party filing an application under Section 457, the Magistrate acquired jurisdiction to pass appropriate orders as he thought fit respecting the disposal of the seized property.</p><p style="text-align: justify;">In this view of the matter, the order of the learned Sessions Judge cannot be sustained and I would hold that the Magistrate had jurisdiction under Section 457 of the Code to pass appropriate order regarding release of the property and giving custody of the same.</p><p style="text-align: justify;">4. The next question for consideration would be as to on what terms the custody of the vehicle should be given to the petitioner who is admittedly the owner of the vehicle. This is a matter over which the Magistrate has not exercised his discretion since he illegally rejected the application as not being entertainable. Consequently, I think it appropriate to hold that the Magistrate should now consider the application filed by the petitioner and release the vehicle to the custody of the petitioner on such terms as he thinks fit in the facts and circumstances of the case.</p><p style="text-align: justify;">5. This Criminal Miscellaneous Application is accordingly allowed with the aforesaid direction and the petitioner may now appear before the learned Magistrate whereafter the Magistrate on hearing the petitioner would pass appropriate orders with regard to the terms for the release of the vehicle in favour of the petitioner.<p style="text-align: justify;"></p><p style="text-align: justify;">',
			'observations' => null,
			'overruledby' => null,
			'prhistory' => '',
			'pubs' => '66(1988)CLT816; 1989CriLJ1025',
			'ratiodecidendi' => '',
			'respondent' => 'State of Orissa',
			'sub' => 'Criminal',
			'link' => null,
			'circuit' => null
		)
	),
	'casename_url' => 'krushna-charan-mohanty-vs-state-orissa',
	'args' => array(
		(int) 0 => '531760',
		(int) 1 => 'krushna-charan-mohanty-vs-state-orissa'
	)
)
$title_for_layout = 'Krushna Charan Mohanty Vs State of Orissa - Citation 531760 - Court Judgment | '
$desc = array(
	'Judgement' => array(
		'id' => '531760',
		'acts' => '',
		'appealno' => '',
		'appellant' => 'Krushna Charan Mohanty',
		'authreffered' => '',
		'casename' => 'Krushna Charan Mohanty Vs. State of Orissa',
		'casenote' => ' - LABOUR & SERVICES 
Pay Scale:[Tarun Chatterjee & R.M. Lodha,JJ] Fixation - Orissa Service Code (1939), Rule 74(b)  Promotion - Government servant, by virtue of Rule 74(b), gets higher pay than what he was getting immediately before his promotion - Circular Dated 19.3.1983 modifying earlier Circular Dated 18.6.1982 resulting in  reduction of pay of employee on promotion  Held, It is not legal. Statutory Rules cannot be altered or amended by such Executive orders or Circulars or Instructions nor can they replace Statutory Rules.
 -  For better appreciation of the point in issue, Section 457 of the Code is extracted hereunder in extenso:',
		'caseanalysis' => null,
		'casesref' => 'M. S. Jaggi v. Subase;',
		'citingcases' => '',
		'counselplain' => '',
		'counseldef' => '',
		'court' => 'Orissa',
		'court_type' => 'HC',
		'decidedon' => '1988-09-12',
		'deposition' => '',
		'favorof' => null,
		'findings' => null,
		'judge' => 'G.B. Patnaik, J.',
		'judgement' => 'ORDER<p>G.B. Patnaik, J.</p><p>1. This application has been filed invoking the jurisdiction of this Court under Section 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, as the petitioner's application for release of the motor vehicle was rejected by the learned Magistrate and on revision, the said order of rejection has been affirmed,</p><p>2. In connection with G.R. Case No. 232 of 1988 under Sections 436/323/427/379, Penal Code, a truck bearing registration under ORL 537 was seized by the Investigating Officer on 22-7-1988. The petitioner is admittedly the owner of the said truck. After the seizure, the petitioner filed an application invoking the jurisdiction of the Magistrate under Section 457 of the Code of Criminal Procedure for getting custody of the vehicle. The learned Magistrate rejected the said application solely on the ground that the case being one triable by Court of Session, he had no jurisdiction to deal with the application. The petitioner, therefore, carried a revision to the Court of Session. The learned Sessions Judge came to the conclusion that the Magistrate was in error to hold that in a case triable by Court of Session, the Magistrate has no jurisdiction under Section 457 for release of the seized property. In fact, the learned Sessions Judge has held that Section 457 of the Code does not put any embargo on a Magistrate to pass any order regarding disposal of the property involved in a case though triable by a Court of Session, but he has rejected the application on the ground that S .457 in terms cannot apply since the matter is still under investigation. In support of the aforesaid finding, the Sessions Judge has placed reliance on the decision of the Andhra Pradesh High Court in the case of State v. Smt. Syad Belouis Sultana (1986) 1 Crimes 177.</p><p>3. The short question for consideration, therefore, is whether Section 487 of the Code can at all be attracted during the continuance of investigation and before filing of the charge-sheet or final form. Chapter XXXIV of the Code of Criminal Procedure deals with disposal of property. Section 451 contained therein deals with a situation when any property is produced in any criminal Court during any inquiry or trial and the court thinks it fit for passing appropriate order for proper custody of such property pending conclusion of the inquiry or trial. Section 452 deals with a situation where after conclusion of the trial, the Court can pass an order regarding disposal of the property in question. Section 457 is the only other section in the chapter dealing with disposal of property. For better appreciation of the point in issue, Section 457 of the Code is extracted hereunder in extenso:</p><p>457. Procedure by police upon seizures of property:</p><p>(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 property or the delivery of such property to the person entitled to the possession thereof, or if such person cannot be ascertained, respecting the custody and production of such property.</p><p>(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.</p><p>This section substantially corresponds to Section 523 of the Criminal Procedure Code, 1898. 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 any inquiry or trial, then the Magistrate gets jurisdiction under Section 487(1) to pass appropriate order for disposal of such property or for delivery of such property to ' the person entitled to the possession; thereof. If a literal meaning to the aforesaid provision is given, then though a property might have been seized by the police, yet until such seizure is reported to a Magistrate then the Magistrate will have no jurisdiction to pass any order under Section 457(1) of the Code. The learned Judge of the Andhra Pradesh High Court in deciding the case reported in (1986) 1 Crimes, 177, appears to have given the literal meaning to the words used in Section 457(1). But in my view such an interpretation would cause great injustice and there is no legislative intent behind giving the aforesaid interpretation. Placing of a report by the police before a Magistrate cannot be said to be a condition precedent for entertaining an application under Section 457. If the fact of seizure is brought to the notice of the Magistrate by any party interested or even, by a party who applies 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. In fact, this question has been lucidly discussed in the case of M. S. Jaggi v. Subase chandra Mohapatra (1977) 44 Cut LT 139 : 1977 Cri LJ 1902. After analysing the different provisions of the Code and considering Section 523 of the present Code, the learned Judge observed (at p. 1904):.Even though there be no provision in the Code obligating the police to report its seizure, nevertheless, if the factum of seizure is reported to the Magistrate by sources other than the police or the fact o f seizure otherwise comes to the knowledge of the Magistrate, he acquires jurisdiction under this section to pass appropriate orders in respect of the seized property. As in this case the factum of seizure was reported to him by the opposite party filing an application under Section 457, the Magistrate acquired jurisdiction to pass appropriate orders as he thought fit respecting the disposal of the seized property.</p><p>In this view of the matter, the order of the learned Sessions Judge cannot be sustained and I would hold that the Magistrate had jurisdiction under Section 457 of the Code to pass appropriate order regarding release of the property and giving custody of the same.</p><p>4. The next question for consideration would be as to on what terms the custody of the vehicle should be given to the petitioner who is admittedly the owner of the vehicle. This is a matter over which the Magistrate has not exercised his discretion since he illegally rejected the application as not being entertainable. Consequently, I think it appropriate to hold that the Magistrate should now consider the application filed by the petitioner and release the vehicle to the custody of the petitioner on such terms as he thinks fit in the facts and circumstances of the case.</p><p>5. This Criminal Miscellaneous Application is accordingly allowed with the aforesaid direction and the petitioner may now appear before the learned Magistrate whereafter the Magistrate on hearing the petitioner would pass appropriate orders with regard to the terms for the release of the vehicle in favour of the petitioner.<p></p><p>',
		'observations' => null,
		'overruledby' => null,
		'prhistory' => '',
		'pubs' => '66(1988)CLT816; 1989CriLJ1025',
		'ratiodecidendi' => '',
		'respondent' => 'State of Orissa',
		'sub' => 'Criminal',
		'link' => null,
		'circuit' => null
	)
)
$casename_url = 'krushna-charan-mohanty-vs-state-orissa'
$args = array(
	(int) 0 => '531760',
	(int) 1 => 'krushna-charan-mohanty-vs-state-orissa'
)
$url = 'https://sooperkanoon.com/case/amp/531760/krushna-charan-mohanty-vs-state-orissa'
$ctype = ' High Court'
$caseref = 'M. S. Jaggi v. Subase<br>'
$content = array(
	(int) 0 => 'ORDER<p>G.B. Patnaik, J.',
	(int) 1 => '<p>1. This application has been filed invoking the jurisdiction of this Court under Section 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, as the petitioner's application for release of the motor vehicle was rejected by the learned Magistrate and on revision, the said order of rejection has been affirmed,',
	(int) 2 => '<p>2. In connection with G.R. Case No. 232 of 1988 under Sections 436/323/427/379, Penal Code, a truck bearing registration under ORL 537 was seized by the Investigating Officer on 22-7-1988. The petitioner is admittedly the owner of the said truck. After the seizure, the petitioner filed an application invoking the jurisdiction of the Magistrate under Section 457 of the Code of Criminal Procedure for getting custody of the vehicle. The learned Magistrate rejected the said application solely on the ground that the case being one triable by Court of Session, he had no jurisdiction to deal with the application. The petitioner, therefore, carried a revision to the Court of Session. The learned Sessions Judge came to the conclusion that the Magistrate was in error to hold that in a case triable by Court of Session, the Magistrate has no jurisdiction under Section 457 for release of the seized property. In fact, the learned Sessions Judge has held that Section 457 of the Code does not put any embargo on a Magistrate to pass any order regarding disposal of the property involved in a case though triable by a Court of Session, but he has rejected the application on the ground that S .457 in terms cannot apply since the matter is still under investigation. In support of the aforesaid finding, the Sessions Judge has placed reliance on the decision of the Andhra Pradesh High Court in the case of State v. Smt. Syad Belouis Sultana (1986) 1 Crimes 177.',
	(int) 3 => '<p>3. The short question for consideration, therefore, is whether Section 487 of the Code can at all be attracted during the continuance of investigation and before filing of the charge-sheet or final form. Chapter XXXIV of the Code of Criminal Procedure deals with disposal of property. Section 451 contained therein deals with a situation when any property is produced in any criminal Court during any inquiry or trial and the court thinks it fit for passing appropriate order for proper custody of such property pending conclusion of the inquiry or trial. Section 452 deals with a situation where after conclusion of the trial, the Court can pass an order regarding disposal of the property in question. Section 457 is the only other section in the chapter dealing with disposal of property. For better appreciation of the point in issue, Section 457 of the Code is extracted hereunder in extenso:',
	(int) 4 => '<p>457. Procedure by police upon seizures of property:',
	(int) 5 => '<p>(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 property or the delivery of such property to the person entitled to the possession thereof, or if such person cannot be ascertained, respecting the custody and production of such property.',
	(int) 6 => '<p>(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.',
	(int) 7 => '<p>This section substantially corresponds to Section 523 of the Criminal Procedure Code, 1898. 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 any inquiry or trial, then the Magistrate gets jurisdiction under Section 487(1) to pass appropriate order for disposal of such property or for delivery of such property to ' the person entitled to the possession; thereof. If a literal meaning to the aforesaid provision is given, then though a property might have been seized by the police, yet until such seizure is reported to a Magistrate then the Magistrate will have no jurisdiction to pass any order under Section 457(1) of the Code. The learned Judge of the Andhra Pradesh High Court in deciding the case reported in (1986) 1 Crimes, 177, appears to have given the literal meaning to the words used in Section 457(1). But in my view such an interpretation would cause great injustice and there is no legislative intent behind giving the aforesaid interpretation. Placing of a report by the police before a Magistrate cannot be said to be a condition precedent for entertaining an application under Section 457. If the fact of seizure is brought to the notice of the Magistrate by any party interested or even, by a party who applies 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. In fact, this question has been lucidly discussed in the case of M. S. Jaggi v. Subase chandra Mohapatra (1977) 44 Cut LT 139 : 1977 Cri LJ 1902. After analysing the different provisions of the Code and considering Section 523 of the present Code, the learned Judge observed (at p. 1904):.Even though there be no provision in the Code obligating the police to report its seizure, nevertheless, if the factum of seizure is reported to the Magistrate by sources other than the police or the fact o f seizure otherwise comes to the knowledge of the Magistrate, he acquires jurisdiction under this section to pass appropriate orders in respect of the seized property. As in this case the factum of seizure was reported to him by the opposite party filing an application under Section 457, the Magistrate acquired jurisdiction to pass appropriate orders as he thought fit respecting the disposal of the seized property.',
	(int) 8 => '<p>In this view of the matter, the order of the learned Sessions Judge cannot be sustained and I would hold that the Magistrate had jurisdiction under Section 457 of the Code to pass appropriate order regarding release of the property and giving custody of the same.',
	(int) 9 => '<p>4. The next question for consideration would be as to on what terms the custody of the vehicle should be given to the petitioner who is admittedly the owner of the vehicle. This is a matter over which the Magistrate has not exercised his discretion since he illegally rejected the application as not being entertainable. Consequently, I think it appropriate to hold that the Magistrate should now consider the application filed by the petitioner and release the vehicle to the custody of the petitioner on such terms as he thinks fit in the facts and circumstances of the case.',
	(int) 10 => '<p>5. This Criminal Miscellaneous Application is accordingly allowed with the aforesaid direction and the petitioner may now appear before the learned Magistrate whereafter the Magistrate on hearing the petitioner would pass appropriate orders with regard to the terms for the release of the vehicle in favour of the petitioner.<p>',
	(int) 11 => '<p>'
)
$paragraphAfter = (int) 1
$cnt = (int) 12
$i = (int) 9
include - APP/View/Case/amp.ctp, line 144
View::_evaluate() - CORE/Cake/View/View.php, line 971
View::_render() - CORE/Cake/View/View.php, line 933
View::render() - CORE/Cake/View/View.php, line 473
Controller::render() - CORE/Cake/Controller/Controller.php, line 963
Dispatcher::_invoke() - CORE/Cake/Routing/Dispatcher.php, line 200
Dispatcher::dispatch() - CORE/Cake/Routing/Dispatcher.php, line 167
[main] - APP/webroot/index.php, line 109

4. The next question for consideration would be as to on what terms the custody of the vehicle should be given to the petitioner who is admittedly the owner of the vehicle. This is a matter over which the Magistrate has not exercised his discretion since he illegally rejected the application as not being entertainable. Consequently, I think it appropriate to hold that the Magistrate should now consider the application filed by the petitioner and release the vehicle to the custody of the petitioner on such terms as he thinks fit in the facts and circumstances of the case.

Notice (8): Undefined variable: query [APP/View/Case/amp.ctp, line 144]
Code Context
                                         echo $this->Adsense->display('responsive_rect'); 

                                        }

                                        echo html_entity_decode($this->Wand->highlight($content[$i], $query));
$viewFile = '/home/legalcrystal/app/View/Case/amp.ctp'
$dataForView = array(
	'title_for_layout' => 'Krushna Charan Mohanty Vs State of Orissa - Citation 531760 - Court Judgment | ',
	'desc' => array(
		'Judgement' => array(
			'id' => '531760',
			'acts' => '',
			'appealno' => '',
			'appellant' => 'Krushna Charan Mohanty',
			'authreffered' => '',
			'casename' => 'Krushna Charan Mohanty Vs. State of Orissa',
			'casenote' => ' - LABOUR & SERVICES 
Pay Scale:[Tarun Chatterjee & R.M. Lodha,JJ] Fixation - Orissa Service Code (1939), Rule 74(b)  Promotion - Government servant, by virtue of Rule 74(b), gets higher pay than what he was getting immediately before his promotion - Circular Dated 19.3.1983 modifying earlier Circular Dated 18.6.1982 resulting in  reduction of pay of employee on promotion  Held, It is not legal. Statutory Rules cannot be altered or amended by such Executive orders or Circulars or Instructions nor can they replace Statutory Rules.
 -  For better appreciation of the point in issue, Section 457 of the Code is extracted hereunder in extenso:',
			'caseanalysis' => null,
			'casesref' => 'M. S. Jaggi v. Subase;',
			'citingcases' => '',
			'counselplain' => '',
			'counseldef' => '',
			'court' => 'Orissa',
			'court_type' => 'HC',
			'decidedon' => '1988-09-12',
			'deposition' => '',
			'favorof' => null,
			'findings' => null,
			'judge' => 'G.B. Patnaik, J.',
			'judgement' => 'ORDER<p style="text-align: justify;">G.B. Patnaik, J.</p><p style="text-align: justify;">1. This application has been filed invoking the jurisdiction of this Court under Section 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, as the petitioner's application for release of the motor vehicle was rejected by the learned Magistrate and on revision, the said order of rejection has been affirmed,</p><p style="text-align: justify;">2. In connection with G.R. Case No. 232 of 1988 under Sections 436/323/427/379, Penal Code, a truck bearing registration under ORL 537 was seized by the Investigating Officer on 22-7-1988. The petitioner is admittedly the owner of the said truck. After the seizure, the petitioner filed an application invoking the jurisdiction of the Magistrate under Section 457 of the Code of Criminal Procedure for getting custody of the vehicle. The learned Magistrate rejected the said application solely on the ground that the case being one triable by Court of Session, he had no jurisdiction to deal with the application. The petitioner, therefore, carried a revision to the Court of Session. The learned Sessions Judge came to the conclusion that the Magistrate was in error to hold that in a case triable by Court of Session, the Magistrate has no jurisdiction under Section 457 for release of the seized property. In fact, the learned Sessions Judge has held that Section 457 of the Code does not put any embargo on a Magistrate to pass any order regarding disposal of the property involved in a case though triable by a Court of Session, but he has rejected the application on the ground that S .457 in terms cannot apply since the matter is still under investigation. In support of the aforesaid finding, the Sessions Judge has placed reliance on the decision of the Andhra Pradesh High Court in the case of State v. Smt. Syad Belouis Sultana (1986) 1 Crimes 177.</p><p style="text-align: justify;">3. The short question for consideration, therefore, is whether Section 487 of the Code can at all be attracted during the continuance of investigation and before filing of the charge-sheet or final form. Chapter XXXIV of the Code of Criminal Procedure deals with disposal of property. Section 451 contained therein deals with a situation when any property is produced in any criminal Court during any inquiry or trial and the court thinks it fit for passing appropriate order for proper custody of such property pending conclusion of the inquiry or trial. Section 452 deals with a situation where after conclusion of the trial, the Court can pass an order regarding disposal of the property in question. Section 457 is the only other section in the chapter dealing with disposal of property. For better appreciation of the point in issue, Section 457 of the Code is extracted hereunder in extenso:</p><p style="text-align: justify;">457. Procedure by police upon seizures of property:</p><p style="text-align: justify;">(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 property or the delivery of such property to the person entitled to the possession thereof, or if such person cannot be ascertained, respecting the custody and production of such property.</p><p style="text-align: justify;">(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.</p><p style="text-align: justify;">This section substantially corresponds to Section 523 of the Criminal Procedure Code, 1898. 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 any inquiry or trial, then the Magistrate gets jurisdiction under Section 487(1) to pass appropriate order for disposal of such property or for delivery of such property to ' the person entitled to the possession; thereof. If a literal meaning to the aforesaid provision is given, then though a property might have been seized by the police, yet until such seizure is reported to a Magistrate then the Magistrate will have no jurisdiction to pass any order under Section 457(1) of the Code. The learned Judge of the Andhra Pradesh High Court in deciding the case reported in (1986) 1 Crimes, 177, appears to have given the literal meaning to the words used in Section 457(1). But in my view such an interpretation would cause great injustice and there is no legislative intent behind giving the aforesaid interpretation. Placing of a report by the police before a Magistrate cannot be said to be a condition precedent for entertaining an application under Section 457. If the fact of seizure is brought to the notice of the Magistrate by any party interested or even, by a party who applies 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. In fact, this question has been lucidly discussed in the case of M. S. Jaggi v. Subase chandra Mohapatra (1977) 44 Cut LT 139 : 1977 Cri LJ 1902. After analysing the different provisions of the Code and considering Section 523 of the present Code, the learned Judge observed (at p. 1904):.Even though there be no provision in the Code obligating the police to report its seizure, nevertheless, if the factum of seizure is reported to the Magistrate by sources other than the police or the fact o f seizure otherwise comes to the knowledge of the Magistrate, he acquires jurisdiction under this section to pass appropriate orders in respect of the seized property. As in this case the factum of seizure was reported to him by the opposite party filing an application under Section 457, the Magistrate acquired jurisdiction to pass appropriate orders as he thought fit respecting the disposal of the seized property.</p><p style="text-align: justify;">In this view of the matter, the order of the learned Sessions Judge cannot be sustained and I would hold that the Magistrate had jurisdiction under Section 457 of the Code to pass appropriate order regarding release of the property and giving custody of the same.</p><p style="text-align: justify;">4. The next question for consideration would be as to on what terms the custody of the vehicle should be given to the petitioner who is admittedly the owner of the vehicle. This is a matter over which the Magistrate has not exercised his discretion since he illegally rejected the application as not being entertainable. Consequently, I think it appropriate to hold that the Magistrate should now consider the application filed by the petitioner and release the vehicle to the custody of the petitioner on such terms as he thinks fit in the facts and circumstances of the case.</p><p style="text-align: justify;">5. This Criminal Miscellaneous Application is accordingly allowed with the aforesaid direction and the petitioner may now appear before the learned Magistrate whereafter the Magistrate on hearing the petitioner would pass appropriate orders with regard to the terms for the release of the vehicle in favour of the petitioner.<p style="text-align: justify;"></p><p style="text-align: justify;">',
			'observations' => null,
			'overruledby' => null,
			'prhistory' => '',
			'pubs' => '66(1988)CLT816; 1989CriLJ1025',
			'ratiodecidendi' => '',
			'respondent' => 'State of Orissa',
			'sub' => 'Criminal',
			'link' => null,
			'circuit' => null
		)
	),
	'casename_url' => 'krushna-charan-mohanty-vs-state-orissa',
	'args' => array(
		(int) 0 => '531760',
		(int) 1 => 'krushna-charan-mohanty-vs-state-orissa'
	)
)
$title_for_layout = 'Krushna Charan Mohanty Vs State of Orissa - Citation 531760 - Court Judgment | '
$desc = array(
	'Judgement' => array(
		'id' => '531760',
		'acts' => '',
		'appealno' => '',
		'appellant' => 'Krushna Charan Mohanty',
		'authreffered' => '',
		'casename' => 'Krushna Charan Mohanty Vs. State of Orissa',
		'casenote' => ' - LABOUR & SERVICES 
Pay Scale:[Tarun Chatterjee & R.M. Lodha,JJ] Fixation - Orissa Service Code (1939), Rule 74(b)  Promotion - Government servant, by virtue of Rule 74(b), gets higher pay than what he was getting immediately before his promotion - Circular Dated 19.3.1983 modifying earlier Circular Dated 18.6.1982 resulting in  reduction of pay of employee on promotion  Held, It is not legal. Statutory Rules cannot be altered or amended by such Executive orders or Circulars or Instructions nor can they replace Statutory Rules.
 -  For better appreciation of the point in issue, Section 457 of the Code is extracted hereunder in extenso:',
		'caseanalysis' => null,
		'casesref' => 'M. S. Jaggi v. Subase;',
		'citingcases' => '',
		'counselplain' => '',
		'counseldef' => '',
		'court' => 'Orissa',
		'court_type' => 'HC',
		'decidedon' => '1988-09-12',
		'deposition' => '',
		'favorof' => null,
		'findings' => null,
		'judge' => 'G.B. Patnaik, J.',
		'judgement' => 'ORDER<p>G.B. Patnaik, J.</p><p>1. This application has been filed invoking the jurisdiction of this Court under Section 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, as the petitioner's application for release of the motor vehicle was rejected by the learned Magistrate and on revision, the said order of rejection has been affirmed,</p><p>2. In connection with G.R. Case No. 232 of 1988 under Sections 436/323/427/379, Penal Code, a truck bearing registration under ORL 537 was seized by the Investigating Officer on 22-7-1988. The petitioner is admittedly the owner of the said truck. After the seizure, the petitioner filed an application invoking the jurisdiction of the Magistrate under Section 457 of the Code of Criminal Procedure for getting custody of the vehicle. The learned Magistrate rejected the said application solely on the ground that the case being one triable by Court of Session, he had no jurisdiction to deal with the application. The petitioner, therefore, carried a revision to the Court of Session. The learned Sessions Judge came to the conclusion that the Magistrate was in error to hold that in a case triable by Court of Session, the Magistrate has no jurisdiction under Section 457 for release of the seized property. In fact, the learned Sessions Judge has held that Section 457 of the Code does not put any embargo on a Magistrate to pass any order regarding disposal of the property involved in a case though triable by a Court of Session, but he has rejected the application on the ground that S .457 in terms cannot apply since the matter is still under investigation. In support of the aforesaid finding, the Sessions Judge has placed reliance on the decision of the Andhra Pradesh High Court in the case of State v. Smt. Syad Belouis Sultana (1986) 1 Crimes 177.</p><p>3. The short question for consideration, therefore, is whether Section 487 of the Code can at all be attracted during the continuance of investigation and before filing of the charge-sheet or final form. Chapter XXXIV of the Code of Criminal Procedure deals with disposal of property. Section 451 contained therein deals with a situation when any property is produced in any criminal Court during any inquiry or trial and the court thinks it fit for passing appropriate order for proper custody of such property pending conclusion of the inquiry or trial. Section 452 deals with a situation where after conclusion of the trial, the Court can pass an order regarding disposal of the property in question. Section 457 is the only other section in the chapter dealing with disposal of property. For better appreciation of the point in issue, Section 457 of the Code is extracted hereunder in extenso:</p><p>457. Procedure by police upon seizures of property:</p><p>(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 property or the delivery of such property to the person entitled to the possession thereof, or if such person cannot be ascertained, respecting the custody and production of such property.</p><p>(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.</p><p>This section substantially corresponds to Section 523 of the Criminal Procedure Code, 1898. 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 any inquiry or trial, then the Magistrate gets jurisdiction under Section 487(1) to pass appropriate order for disposal of such property or for delivery of such property to ' the person entitled to the possession; thereof. If a literal meaning to the aforesaid provision is given, then though a property might have been seized by the police, yet until such seizure is reported to a Magistrate then the Magistrate will have no jurisdiction to pass any order under Section 457(1) of the Code. The learned Judge of the Andhra Pradesh High Court in deciding the case reported in (1986) 1 Crimes, 177, appears to have given the literal meaning to the words used in Section 457(1). But in my view such an interpretation would cause great injustice and there is no legislative intent behind giving the aforesaid interpretation. Placing of a report by the police before a Magistrate cannot be said to be a condition precedent for entertaining an application under Section 457. If the fact of seizure is brought to the notice of the Magistrate by any party interested or even, by a party who applies 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. In fact, this question has been lucidly discussed in the case of M. S. Jaggi v. Subase chandra Mohapatra (1977) 44 Cut LT 139 : 1977 Cri LJ 1902. After analysing the different provisions of the Code and considering Section 523 of the present Code, the learned Judge observed (at p. 1904):.Even though there be no provision in the Code obligating the police to report its seizure, nevertheless, if the factum of seizure is reported to the Magistrate by sources other than the police or the fact o f seizure otherwise comes to the knowledge of the Magistrate, he acquires jurisdiction under this section to pass appropriate orders in respect of the seized property. As in this case the factum of seizure was reported to him by the opposite party filing an application under Section 457, the Magistrate acquired jurisdiction to pass appropriate orders as he thought fit respecting the disposal of the seized property.</p><p>In this view of the matter, the order of the learned Sessions Judge cannot be sustained and I would hold that the Magistrate had jurisdiction under Section 457 of the Code to pass appropriate order regarding release of the property and giving custody of the same.</p><p>4. The next question for consideration would be as to on what terms the custody of the vehicle should be given to the petitioner who is admittedly the owner of the vehicle. This is a matter over which the Magistrate has not exercised his discretion since he illegally rejected the application as not being entertainable. Consequently, I think it appropriate to hold that the Magistrate should now consider the application filed by the petitioner and release the vehicle to the custody of the petitioner on such terms as he thinks fit in the facts and circumstances of the case.</p><p>5. This Criminal Miscellaneous Application is accordingly allowed with the aforesaid direction and the petitioner may now appear before the learned Magistrate whereafter the Magistrate on hearing the petitioner would pass appropriate orders with regard to the terms for the release of the vehicle in favour of the petitioner.<p></p><p>',
		'observations' => null,
		'overruledby' => null,
		'prhistory' => '',
		'pubs' => '66(1988)CLT816; 1989CriLJ1025',
		'ratiodecidendi' => '',
		'respondent' => 'State of Orissa',
		'sub' => 'Criminal',
		'link' => null,
		'circuit' => null
	)
)
$casename_url = 'krushna-charan-mohanty-vs-state-orissa'
$args = array(
	(int) 0 => '531760',
	(int) 1 => 'krushna-charan-mohanty-vs-state-orissa'
)
$url = 'https://sooperkanoon.com/case/amp/531760/krushna-charan-mohanty-vs-state-orissa'
$ctype = ' High Court'
$caseref = 'M. S. Jaggi v. Subase<br>'
$content = array(
	(int) 0 => 'ORDER<p>G.B. Patnaik, J.',
	(int) 1 => '<p>1. This application has been filed invoking the jurisdiction of this Court under Section 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, as the petitioner's application for release of the motor vehicle was rejected by the learned Magistrate and on revision, the said order of rejection has been affirmed,',
	(int) 2 => '<p>2. In connection with G.R. Case No. 232 of 1988 under Sections 436/323/427/379, Penal Code, a truck bearing registration under ORL 537 was seized by the Investigating Officer on 22-7-1988. The petitioner is admittedly the owner of the said truck. After the seizure, the petitioner filed an application invoking the jurisdiction of the Magistrate under Section 457 of the Code of Criminal Procedure for getting custody of the vehicle. The learned Magistrate rejected the said application solely on the ground that the case being one triable by Court of Session, he had no jurisdiction to deal with the application. The petitioner, therefore, carried a revision to the Court of Session. The learned Sessions Judge came to the conclusion that the Magistrate was in error to hold that in a case triable by Court of Session, the Magistrate has no jurisdiction under Section 457 for release of the seized property. In fact, the learned Sessions Judge has held that Section 457 of the Code does not put any embargo on a Magistrate to pass any order regarding disposal of the property involved in a case though triable by a Court of Session, but he has rejected the application on the ground that S .457 in terms cannot apply since the matter is still under investigation. In support of the aforesaid finding, the Sessions Judge has placed reliance on the decision of the Andhra Pradesh High Court in the case of State v. Smt. Syad Belouis Sultana (1986) 1 Crimes 177.',
	(int) 3 => '<p>3. The short question for consideration, therefore, is whether Section 487 of the Code can at all be attracted during the continuance of investigation and before filing of the charge-sheet or final form. Chapter XXXIV of the Code of Criminal Procedure deals with disposal of property. Section 451 contained therein deals with a situation when any property is produced in any criminal Court during any inquiry or trial and the court thinks it fit for passing appropriate order for proper custody of such property pending conclusion of the inquiry or trial. Section 452 deals with a situation where after conclusion of the trial, the Court can pass an order regarding disposal of the property in question. Section 457 is the only other section in the chapter dealing with disposal of property. For better appreciation of the point in issue, Section 457 of the Code is extracted hereunder in extenso:',
	(int) 4 => '<p>457. Procedure by police upon seizures of property:',
	(int) 5 => '<p>(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 property or the delivery of such property to the person entitled to the possession thereof, or if such person cannot be ascertained, respecting the custody and production of such property.',
	(int) 6 => '<p>(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.',
	(int) 7 => '<p>This section substantially corresponds to Section 523 of the Criminal Procedure Code, 1898. 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 any inquiry or trial, then the Magistrate gets jurisdiction under Section 487(1) to pass appropriate order for disposal of such property or for delivery of such property to ' the person entitled to the possession; thereof. If a literal meaning to the aforesaid provision is given, then though a property might have been seized by the police, yet until such seizure is reported to a Magistrate then the Magistrate will have no jurisdiction to pass any order under Section 457(1) of the Code. The learned Judge of the Andhra Pradesh High Court in deciding the case reported in (1986) 1 Crimes, 177, appears to have given the literal meaning to the words used in Section 457(1). But in my view such an interpretation would cause great injustice and there is no legislative intent behind giving the aforesaid interpretation. Placing of a report by the police before a Magistrate cannot be said to be a condition precedent for entertaining an application under Section 457. If the fact of seizure is brought to the notice of the Magistrate by any party interested or even, by a party who applies 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. In fact, this question has been lucidly discussed in the case of M. S. Jaggi v. Subase chandra Mohapatra (1977) 44 Cut LT 139 : 1977 Cri LJ 1902. After analysing the different provisions of the Code and considering Section 523 of the present Code, the learned Judge observed (at p. 1904):.Even though there be no provision in the Code obligating the police to report its seizure, nevertheless, if the factum of seizure is reported to the Magistrate by sources other than the police or the fact o f seizure otherwise comes to the knowledge of the Magistrate, he acquires jurisdiction under this section to pass appropriate orders in respect of the seized property. As in this case the factum of seizure was reported to him by the opposite party filing an application under Section 457, the Magistrate acquired jurisdiction to pass appropriate orders as he thought fit respecting the disposal of the seized property.',
	(int) 8 => '<p>In this view of the matter, the order of the learned Sessions Judge cannot be sustained and I would hold that the Magistrate had jurisdiction under Section 457 of the Code to pass appropriate order regarding release of the property and giving custody of the same.',
	(int) 9 => '<p>4. The next question for consideration would be as to on what terms the custody of the vehicle should be given to the petitioner who is admittedly the owner of the vehicle. This is a matter over which the Magistrate has not exercised his discretion since he illegally rejected the application as not being entertainable. Consequently, I think it appropriate to hold that the Magistrate should now consider the application filed by the petitioner and release the vehicle to the custody of the petitioner on such terms as he thinks fit in the facts and circumstances of the case.',
	(int) 10 => '<p>5. This Criminal Miscellaneous Application is accordingly allowed with the aforesaid direction and the petitioner may now appear before the learned Magistrate whereafter the Magistrate on hearing the petitioner would pass appropriate orders with regard to the terms for the release of the vehicle in favour of the petitioner.<p>',
	(int) 11 => '<p>'
)
$paragraphAfter = (int) 1
$cnt = (int) 12
$i = (int) 10
include - APP/View/Case/amp.ctp, line 144
View::_evaluate() - CORE/Cake/View/View.php, line 971
View::_render() - CORE/Cake/View/View.php, line 933
View::render() - CORE/Cake/View/View.php, line 473
Controller::render() - CORE/Cake/Controller/Controller.php, line 963
Dispatcher::_invoke() - CORE/Cake/Routing/Dispatcher.php, line 200
Dispatcher::dispatch() - CORE/Cake/Routing/Dispatcher.php, line 167
[main] - APP/webroot/index.php, line 109

5. This Criminal Miscellaneous Application is accordingly allowed with the aforesaid direction and the petitioner may now appear before the learned Magistrate whereafter the Magistrate on hearing the petitioner would pass appropriate orders with regard to the terms for the release of the vehicle in favour of the petitioner.

Notice (8): Undefined variable: query [APP/View/Case/amp.ctp, line 144]
Code Context
                                         echo $this->Adsense->display('responsive_rect'); 

                                        }

                                        echo html_entity_decode($this->Wand->highlight($content[$i], $query));
$viewFile = '/home/legalcrystal/app/View/Case/amp.ctp'
$dataForView = array(
	'title_for_layout' => 'Krushna Charan Mohanty Vs State of Orissa - Citation 531760 - Court Judgment | ',
	'desc' => array(
		'Judgement' => array(
			'id' => '531760',
			'acts' => '',
			'appealno' => '',
			'appellant' => 'Krushna Charan Mohanty',
			'authreffered' => '',
			'casename' => 'Krushna Charan Mohanty Vs. State of Orissa',
			'casenote' => ' - LABOUR & SERVICES 
Pay Scale:[Tarun Chatterjee & R.M. Lodha,JJ] Fixation - Orissa Service Code (1939), Rule 74(b)  Promotion - Government servant, by virtue of Rule 74(b), gets higher pay than what he was getting immediately before his promotion - Circular Dated 19.3.1983 modifying earlier Circular Dated 18.6.1982 resulting in  reduction of pay of employee on promotion  Held, It is not legal. Statutory Rules cannot be altered or amended by such Executive orders or Circulars or Instructions nor can they replace Statutory Rules.
 -  For better appreciation of the point in issue, Section 457 of the Code is extracted hereunder in extenso:',
			'caseanalysis' => null,
			'casesref' => 'M. S. Jaggi v. Subase;',
			'citingcases' => '',
			'counselplain' => '',
			'counseldef' => '',
			'court' => 'Orissa',
			'court_type' => 'HC',
			'decidedon' => '1988-09-12',
			'deposition' => '',
			'favorof' => null,
			'findings' => null,
			'judge' => 'G.B. Patnaik, J.',
			'judgement' => 'ORDER<p style="text-align: justify;">G.B. Patnaik, J.</p><p style="text-align: justify;">1. This application has been filed invoking the jurisdiction of this Court under Section 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, as the petitioner's application for release of the motor vehicle was rejected by the learned Magistrate and on revision, the said order of rejection has been affirmed,</p><p style="text-align: justify;">2. In connection with G.R. Case No. 232 of 1988 under Sections 436/323/427/379, Penal Code, a truck bearing registration under ORL 537 was seized by the Investigating Officer on 22-7-1988. The petitioner is admittedly the owner of the said truck. After the seizure, the petitioner filed an application invoking the jurisdiction of the Magistrate under Section 457 of the Code of Criminal Procedure for getting custody of the vehicle. The learned Magistrate rejected the said application solely on the ground that the case being one triable by Court of Session, he had no jurisdiction to deal with the application. The petitioner, therefore, carried a revision to the Court of Session. The learned Sessions Judge came to the conclusion that the Magistrate was in error to hold that in a case triable by Court of Session, the Magistrate has no jurisdiction under Section 457 for release of the seized property. In fact, the learned Sessions Judge has held that Section 457 of the Code does not put any embargo on a Magistrate to pass any order regarding disposal of the property involved in a case though triable by a Court of Session, but he has rejected the application on the ground that S .457 in terms cannot apply since the matter is still under investigation. In support of the aforesaid finding, the Sessions Judge has placed reliance on the decision of the Andhra Pradesh High Court in the case of State v. Smt. Syad Belouis Sultana (1986) 1 Crimes 177.</p><p style="text-align: justify;">3. The short question for consideration, therefore, is whether Section 487 of the Code can at all be attracted during the continuance of investigation and before filing of the charge-sheet or final form. Chapter XXXIV of the Code of Criminal Procedure deals with disposal of property. Section 451 contained therein deals with a situation when any property is produced in any criminal Court during any inquiry or trial and the court thinks it fit for passing appropriate order for proper custody of such property pending conclusion of the inquiry or trial. Section 452 deals with a situation where after conclusion of the trial, the Court can pass an order regarding disposal of the property in question. Section 457 is the only other section in the chapter dealing with disposal of property. For better appreciation of the point in issue, Section 457 of the Code is extracted hereunder in extenso:</p><p style="text-align: justify;">457. Procedure by police upon seizures of property:</p><p style="text-align: justify;">(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 property or the delivery of such property to the person entitled to the possession thereof, or if such person cannot be ascertained, respecting the custody and production of such property.</p><p style="text-align: justify;">(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.</p><p style="text-align: justify;">This section substantially corresponds to Section 523 of the Criminal Procedure Code, 1898. 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 any inquiry or trial, then the Magistrate gets jurisdiction under Section 487(1) to pass appropriate order for disposal of such property or for delivery of such property to ' the person entitled to the possession; thereof. If a literal meaning to the aforesaid provision is given, then though a property might have been seized by the police, yet until such seizure is reported to a Magistrate then the Magistrate will have no jurisdiction to pass any order under Section 457(1) of the Code. The learned Judge of the Andhra Pradesh High Court in deciding the case reported in (1986) 1 Crimes, 177, appears to have given the literal meaning to the words used in Section 457(1). But in my view such an interpretation would cause great injustice and there is no legislative intent behind giving the aforesaid interpretation. Placing of a report by the police before a Magistrate cannot be said to be a condition precedent for entertaining an application under Section 457. If the fact of seizure is brought to the notice of the Magistrate by any party interested or even, by a party who applies 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. In fact, this question has been lucidly discussed in the case of M. S. Jaggi v. Subase chandra Mohapatra (1977) 44 Cut LT 139 : 1977 Cri LJ 1902. After analysing the different provisions of the Code and considering Section 523 of the present Code, the learned Judge observed (at p. 1904):.Even though there be no provision in the Code obligating the police to report its seizure, nevertheless, if the factum of seizure is reported to the Magistrate by sources other than the police or the fact o f seizure otherwise comes to the knowledge of the Magistrate, he acquires jurisdiction under this section to pass appropriate orders in respect of the seized property. As in this case the factum of seizure was reported to him by the opposite party filing an application under Section 457, the Magistrate acquired jurisdiction to pass appropriate orders as he thought fit respecting the disposal of the seized property.</p><p style="text-align: justify;">In this view of the matter, the order of the learned Sessions Judge cannot be sustained and I would hold that the Magistrate had jurisdiction under Section 457 of the Code to pass appropriate order regarding release of the property and giving custody of the same.</p><p style="text-align: justify;">4. The next question for consideration would be as to on what terms the custody of the vehicle should be given to the petitioner who is admittedly the owner of the vehicle. This is a matter over which the Magistrate has not exercised his discretion since he illegally rejected the application as not being entertainable. Consequently, I think it appropriate to hold that the Magistrate should now consider the application filed by the petitioner and release the vehicle to the custody of the petitioner on such terms as he thinks fit in the facts and circumstances of the case.</p><p style="text-align: justify;">5. This Criminal Miscellaneous Application is accordingly allowed with the aforesaid direction and the petitioner may now appear before the learned Magistrate whereafter the Magistrate on hearing the petitioner would pass appropriate orders with regard to the terms for the release of the vehicle in favour of the petitioner.<p style="text-align: justify;"></p><p style="text-align: justify;">',
			'observations' => null,
			'overruledby' => null,
			'prhistory' => '',
			'pubs' => '66(1988)CLT816; 1989CriLJ1025',
			'ratiodecidendi' => '',
			'respondent' => 'State of Orissa',
			'sub' => 'Criminal',
			'link' => null,
			'circuit' => null
		)
	),
	'casename_url' => 'krushna-charan-mohanty-vs-state-orissa',
	'args' => array(
		(int) 0 => '531760',
		(int) 1 => 'krushna-charan-mohanty-vs-state-orissa'
	)
)
$title_for_layout = 'Krushna Charan Mohanty Vs State of Orissa - Citation 531760 - Court Judgment | '
$desc = array(
	'Judgement' => array(
		'id' => '531760',
		'acts' => '',
		'appealno' => '',
		'appellant' => 'Krushna Charan Mohanty',
		'authreffered' => '',
		'casename' => 'Krushna Charan Mohanty Vs. State of Orissa',
		'casenote' => ' - LABOUR & SERVICES 
Pay Scale:[Tarun Chatterjee & R.M. Lodha,JJ] Fixation - Orissa Service Code (1939), Rule 74(b)  Promotion - Government servant, by virtue of Rule 74(b), gets higher pay than what he was getting immediately before his promotion - Circular Dated 19.3.1983 modifying earlier Circular Dated 18.6.1982 resulting in  reduction of pay of employee on promotion  Held, It is not legal. Statutory Rules cannot be altered or amended by such Executive orders or Circulars or Instructions nor can they replace Statutory Rules.
 -  For better appreciation of the point in issue, Section 457 of the Code is extracted hereunder in extenso:',
		'caseanalysis' => null,
		'casesref' => 'M. S. Jaggi v. Subase;',
		'citingcases' => '',
		'counselplain' => '',
		'counseldef' => '',
		'court' => 'Orissa',
		'court_type' => 'HC',
		'decidedon' => '1988-09-12',
		'deposition' => '',
		'favorof' => null,
		'findings' => null,
		'judge' => 'G.B. Patnaik, J.',
		'judgement' => 'ORDER<p>G.B. Patnaik, J.</p><p>1. This application has been filed invoking the jurisdiction of this Court under Section 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, as the petitioner's application for release of the motor vehicle was rejected by the learned Magistrate and on revision, the said order of rejection has been affirmed,</p><p>2. In connection with G.R. Case No. 232 of 1988 under Sections 436/323/427/379, Penal Code, a truck bearing registration under ORL 537 was seized by the Investigating Officer on 22-7-1988. The petitioner is admittedly the owner of the said truck. After the seizure, the petitioner filed an application invoking the jurisdiction of the Magistrate under Section 457 of the Code of Criminal Procedure for getting custody of the vehicle. The learned Magistrate rejected the said application solely on the ground that the case being one triable by Court of Session, he had no jurisdiction to deal with the application. The petitioner, therefore, carried a revision to the Court of Session. The learned Sessions Judge came to the conclusion that the Magistrate was in error to hold that in a case triable by Court of Session, the Magistrate has no jurisdiction under Section 457 for release of the seized property. In fact, the learned Sessions Judge has held that Section 457 of the Code does not put any embargo on a Magistrate to pass any order regarding disposal of the property involved in a case though triable by a Court of Session, but he has rejected the application on the ground that S .457 in terms cannot apply since the matter is still under investigation. In support of the aforesaid finding, the Sessions Judge has placed reliance on the decision of the Andhra Pradesh High Court in the case of State v. Smt. Syad Belouis Sultana (1986) 1 Crimes 177.</p><p>3. The short question for consideration, therefore, is whether Section 487 of the Code can at all be attracted during the continuance of investigation and before filing of the charge-sheet or final form. Chapter XXXIV of the Code of Criminal Procedure deals with disposal of property. Section 451 contained therein deals with a situation when any property is produced in any criminal Court during any inquiry or trial and the court thinks it fit for passing appropriate order for proper custody of such property pending conclusion of the inquiry or trial. Section 452 deals with a situation where after conclusion of the trial, the Court can pass an order regarding disposal of the property in question. Section 457 is the only other section in the chapter dealing with disposal of property. For better appreciation of the point in issue, Section 457 of the Code is extracted hereunder in extenso:</p><p>457. Procedure by police upon seizures of property:</p><p>(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 property or the delivery of such property to the person entitled to the possession thereof, or if such person cannot be ascertained, respecting the custody and production of such property.</p><p>(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.</p><p>This section substantially corresponds to Section 523 of the Criminal Procedure Code, 1898. 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 any inquiry or trial, then the Magistrate gets jurisdiction under Section 487(1) to pass appropriate order for disposal of such property or for delivery of such property to ' the person entitled to the possession; thereof. If a literal meaning to the aforesaid provision is given, then though a property might have been seized by the police, yet until such seizure is reported to a Magistrate then the Magistrate will have no jurisdiction to pass any order under Section 457(1) of the Code. The learned Judge of the Andhra Pradesh High Court in deciding the case reported in (1986) 1 Crimes, 177, appears to have given the literal meaning to the words used in Section 457(1). But in my view such an interpretation would cause great injustice and there is no legislative intent behind giving the aforesaid interpretation. Placing of a report by the police before a Magistrate cannot be said to be a condition precedent for entertaining an application under Section 457. If the fact of seizure is brought to the notice of the Magistrate by any party interested or even, by a party who applies 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. In fact, this question has been lucidly discussed in the case of M. S. Jaggi v. Subase chandra Mohapatra (1977) 44 Cut LT 139 : 1977 Cri LJ 1902. After analysing the different provisions of the Code and considering Section 523 of the present Code, the learned Judge observed (at p. 1904):.Even though there be no provision in the Code obligating the police to report its seizure, nevertheless, if the factum of seizure is reported to the Magistrate by sources other than the police or the fact o f seizure otherwise comes to the knowledge of the Magistrate, he acquires jurisdiction under this section to pass appropriate orders in respect of the seized property. As in this case the factum of seizure was reported to him by the opposite party filing an application under Section 457, the Magistrate acquired jurisdiction to pass appropriate orders as he thought fit respecting the disposal of the seized property.</p><p>In this view of the matter, the order of the learned Sessions Judge cannot be sustained and I would hold that the Magistrate had jurisdiction under Section 457 of the Code to pass appropriate order regarding release of the property and giving custody of the same.</p><p>4. The next question for consideration would be as to on what terms the custody of the vehicle should be given to the petitioner who is admittedly the owner of the vehicle. This is a matter over which the Magistrate has not exercised his discretion since he illegally rejected the application as not being entertainable. Consequently, I think it appropriate to hold that the Magistrate should now consider the application filed by the petitioner and release the vehicle to the custody of the petitioner on such terms as he thinks fit in the facts and circumstances of the case.</p><p>5. This Criminal Miscellaneous Application is accordingly allowed with the aforesaid direction and the petitioner may now appear before the learned Magistrate whereafter the Magistrate on hearing the petitioner would pass appropriate orders with regard to the terms for the release of the vehicle in favour of the petitioner.<p></p><p>',
		'observations' => null,
		'overruledby' => null,
		'prhistory' => '',
		'pubs' => '66(1988)CLT816; 1989CriLJ1025',
		'ratiodecidendi' => '',
		'respondent' => 'State of Orissa',
		'sub' => 'Criminal',
		'link' => null,
		'circuit' => null
	)
)
$casename_url = 'krushna-charan-mohanty-vs-state-orissa'
$args = array(
	(int) 0 => '531760',
	(int) 1 => 'krushna-charan-mohanty-vs-state-orissa'
)
$url = 'https://sooperkanoon.com/case/amp/531760/krushna-charan-mohanty-vs-state-orissa'
$ctype = ' High Court'
$caseref = 'M. S. Jaggi v. Subase<br>'
$content = array(
	(int) 0 => 'ORDER<p>G.B. Patnaik, J.',
	(int) 1 => '<p>1. This application has been filed invoking the jurisdiction of this Court under Section 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, as the petitioner's application for release of the motor vehicle was rejected by the learned Magistrate and on revision, the said order of rejection has been affirmed,',
	(int) 2 => '<p>2. In connection with G.R. Case No. 232 of 1988 under Sections 436/323/427/379, Penal Code, a truck bearing registration under ORL 537 was seized by the Investigating Officer on 22-7-1988. The petitioner is admittedly the owner of the said truck. After the seizure, the petitioner filed an application invoking the jurisdiction of the Magistrate under Section 457 of the Code of Criminal Procedure for getting custody of the vehicle. The learned Magistrate rejected the said application solely on the ground that the case being one triable by Court of Session, he had no jurisdiction to deal with the application. The petitioner, therefore, carried a revision to the Court of Session. The learned Sessions Judge came to the conclusion that the Magistrate was in error to hold that in a case triable by Court of Session, the Magistrate has no jurisdiction under Section 457 for release of the seized property. In fact, the learned Sessions Judge has held that Section 457 of the Code does not put any embargo on a Magistrate to pass any order regarding disposal of the property involved in a case though triable by a Court of Session, but he has rejected the application on the ground that S .457 in terms cannot apply since the matter is still under investigation. In support of the aforesaid finding, the Sessions Judge has placed reliance on the decision of the Andhra Pradesh High Court in the case of State v. Smt. Syad Belouis Sultana (1986) 1 Crimes 177.',
	(int) 3 => '<p>3. The short question for consideration, therefore, is whether Section 487 of the Code can at all be attracted during the continuance of investigation and before filing of the charge-sheet or final form. Chapter XXXIV of the Code of Criminal Procedure deals with disposal of property. Section 451 contained therein deals with a situation when any property is produced in any criminal Court during any inquiry or trial and the court thinks it fit for passing appropriate order for proper custody of such property pending conclusion of the inquiry or trial. Section 452 deals with a situation where after conclusion of the trial, the Court can pass an order regarding disposal of the property in question. Section 457 is the only other section in the chapter dealing with disposal of property. For better appreciation of the point in issue, Section 457 of the Code is extracted hereunder in extenso:',
	(int) 4 => '<p>457. Procedure by police upon seizures of property:',
	(int) 5 => '<p>(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 property or the delivery of such property to the person entitled to the possession thereof, or if such person cannot be ascertained, respecting the custody and production of such property.',
	(int) 6 => '<p>(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.',
	(int) 7 => '<p>This section substantially corresponds to Section 523 of the Criminal Procedure Code, 1898. 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 any inquiry or trial, then the Magistrate gets jurisdiction under Section 487(1) to pass appropriate order for disposal of such property or for delivery of such property to ' the person entitled to the possession; thereof. If a literal meaning to the aforesaid provision is given, then though a property might have been seized by the police, yet until such seizure is reported to a Magistrate then the Magistrate will have no jurisdiction to pass any order under Section 457(1) of the Code. The learned Judge of the Andhra Pradesh High Court in deciding the case reported in (1986) 1 Crimes, 177, appears to have given the literal meaning to the words used in Section 457(1). But in my view such an interpretation would cause great injustice and there is no legislative intent behind giving the aforesaid interpretation. Placing of a report by the police before a Magistrate cannot be said to be a condition precedent for entertaining an application under Section 457. If the fact of seizure is brought to the notice of the Magistrate by any party interested or even, by a party who applies 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. In fact, this question has been lucidly discussed in the case of M. S. Jaggi v. Subase chandra Mohapatra (1977) 44 Cut LT 139 : 1977 Cri LJ 1902. After analysing the different provisions of the Code and considering Section 523 of the present Code, the learned Judge observed (at p. 1904):.Even though there be no provision in the Code obligating the police to report its seizure, nevertheless, if the factum of seizure is reported to the Magistrate by sources other than the police or the fact o f seizure otherwise comes to the knowledge of the Magistrate, he acquires jurisdiction under this section to pass appropriate orders in respect of the seized property. As in this case the factum of seizure was reported to him by the opposite party filing an application under Section 457, the Magistrate acquired jurisdiction to pass appropriate orders as he thought fit respecting the disposal of the seized property.',
	(int) 8 => '<p>In this view of the matter, the order of the learned Sessions Judge cannot be sustained and I would hold that the Magistrate had jurisdiction under Section 457 of the Code to pass appropriate order regarding release of the property and giving custody of the same.',
	(int) 9 => '<p>4. The next question for consideration would be as to on what terms the custody of the vehicle should be given to the petitioner who is admittedly the owner of the vehicle. This is a matter over which the Magistrate has not exercised his discretion since he illegally rejected the application as not being entertainable. Consequently, I think it appropriate to hold that the Magistrate should now consider the application filed by the petitioner and release the vehicle to the custody of the petitioner on such terms as he thinks fit in the facts and circumstances of the case.',
	(int) 10 => '<p>5. This Criminal Miscellaneous Application is accordingly allowed with the aforesaid direction and the petitioner may now appear before the learned Magistrate whereafter the Magistrate on hearing the petitioner would pass appropriate orders with regard to the terms for the release of the vehicle in favour of the petitioner.<p>',
	(int) 11 => '<p>'
)
$paragraphAfter = (int) 1
$cnt = (int) 12
$i = (int) 11
include - APP/View/Case/amp.ctp, line 144
View::_evaluate() - CORE/Cake/View/View.php, line 971
View::_render() - CORE/Cake/View/View.php, line 933
View::render() - CORE/Cake/View/View.php, line 473
Controller::render() - CORE/Cake/Controller/Controller.php, line 963
Dispatcher::_invoke() - CORE/Cake/Routing/Dispatcher.php, line 200
Dispatcher::dispatch() - CORE/Cake/Routing/Dispatcher.php, line 167
[main] - APP/webroot/index.php, line 109