Case Note & Summary
The judgment of the High Court of Judicature at Bombay, Criminal Appellate Jurisdiction, in Writ Petition No. 3291 of 2021 addressed the release of a motor vehicle seized in connection with a criminal case. The petitioner, an owner of a Maruti Dezire car bearing registration number MH-12-RF-9579, had given the car to a relative for regular maintenance because he was serving in the Indian Army. The car was allegedly used by an accused in Crime No. 142 of 2021 registered at Sangli City Police Station under Section 376(2)(n) of the Indian Penal Code, 1860. According to the prosecution, the accused had taken obscene photographs of the victim inside the car and threatened to make those photographs viral. The petitioner applied for release of the car, but the trial court and the revisional court, the Additional Sessions Judge, Sangli, declined to release it. The revisional court's order dated 10 August 2021 was challenged before the High Court under Article 227 of the Constitution of India. The core legal issue before the High Court was whether the owner of a vehicle used in an alleged offence is entitled to interim release of the vehicle under Section 457 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973, read with Section 357(2). The court examined the scope of Section 457 CrPC, which empowers a Magistrate to pass any order regarding the disposal of property, to deliver it to the person entitled to its possession subject to conditions, or to order its custody if no such person exists. The court held that the discretion conferred under this section is limited to selecting one of these alternatives, and the Magistrate must decide who is the person 'entitled to possess'. The expression 'entitled to possess' means the rightful owner. In the present case, the petitioner, being the owner of the car, was the person entitled to possess it. The court observed that the mere fact that the vehicle was allegedly used in the commission of a crime did not deprive the rightful owner of possession, especially when the owner was not the accused and had given the car to a relative for maintenance while he served in the Army. The court reasoned that the trial court and the revisional court had failed to apply the correct legal principle under Section 457 CrPC. They had denied the release without recognizing the petitioner's status as the rightful owner. Consequently, the impugned orders were set aside. The High Court allowed the writ petition and directed the respondents to deliver the car to the power of attorney holder of the petitioner, subject to an undertaking that the holder would produce the car when required and would not sell or transfer the car without the permission of the trial court. The release was ordered forthwith upon furnishing the undertaking, and the rule was made absolute. The judgment reinforces that a Magistrate's discretion under Section 457 CrPC is not unfettered; it must be exercised to deliver property to the person entitled to its possession unless there are compelling reasons to the contrary.
Headnote
A) Criminal Procedure - Interim Release of Vehicle - Rightful Owner Entitled to Possession - Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973, Sections 357(2), 457 - The petitioner, owner of a car and serving in the Indian Army, sought release of the car allegedly used in Crime No.142 of 2021 under Section 376(2)(n) IPC; trial and revisional courts declined release. Held that under Section 457 CrPC the Magistrate's discretion is limited to delivering property to the person entitled to possess, and 'entitled to possess' means the rightful owner; the petitioner as owner was entitled to possession; impugned orders set aside and vehicle directed to be released on undertaking (Paras 3-6).
Issue of Consideration
Whether the owner of a vehicle, not accused, is entitled to release of the vehicle under Section 457 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 read with Section 357(2), when the vehicle was allegedly used in a criminal offence.
Final Decision
The writ petition was allowed; the impugned orders of the Additional Sessions Judge, Sangli and the Magistrate were set aside; the respondents were directed to deliver the car to the power of attorney holder of the petitioner on an undertaking to produce the car when required and not to sell or transfer it without the permission of the trial court.
Law Points
- Section 457 CrPC confers limited discretion on Magistrate to deliver property to person entitled to possess
- 'entitled to possess' means rightful owner
- owner of vehicle used in offence is entitled to interim release unless condition requires otherwise
- High Court under Article 227 can correct erroneous refusal
