IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA Cr. Misc. No.10233 of 2008 RANJAN KUMAR @ TILLU, SON OF OM PRAKASH BARNWAL, RESIDENT OF VILLAGE - SUGAULI BAZAR, P.S. SUGAULI, DISTRICT – EAST CHAMPARAN. ………………………… PETITIOENR. Versus THE STATE OF BIHAR ………………………. OPP. PARTY ----------- 03/ 21. 05.2010 Heard the learned counsel for the parties. This is a petition for quashing the order dated 06.02.2008 passed in Session Trial No. 711 of 2007 arising out of Chakia P.S. Case No. 93 of 2003 for offence under Section 414/34 of the Indian Penal Code by which he has refused to release the seized silver in favour of the petitioner. The prosecution case as alleged is that during the course of checking the Officer-In-Charge, Chakia intercepted a Maruti car with two persons including the driver but they did not produce any paper and the driver disclosed that the papers are in DTO office and the photo copies are at the house and then the informant asked the driver to bring the papers of the vehicle and in the meantime another person also flew away causing the suspicion. It has further been alleged that an unidentified call was received that huge amount of silver is lying in the vehicle and thereafter in presence of two independent witnesses the vehicle was searched and the information was found correct. The matter was reported to the Superior Authority. However, the petitioner earlier moved for the released of said silver claiming that the said silver is not subject matter of any theft and that the silver has been collected from different jewelry shop in support thereof receipt of 2 different jewelry shops supported with an affidavit was filed in the court. However, the claim of the petitioner was resisted stating that the petitioner has no valid licence for carrying on the business of silver and the petition of the petitioner was earlier rejected by the trial court as well as by the Hon’ble High Court in Cr. Misc. No. 8906 of 2004 and it was held that as the petitioner has miserably failed to prove his legal owner ship and source of procurement. Learned counsel for the petitioner, however, contended that several years have been elapsed, the case is pending and the silver is still lying with the police and has relied upon decision reported in 1996 Cri. L. J. 740 (Keshu Lal V. State of Rajasthan) and on this basis claimed that the silver ought to have been released or a proclamation ought to have been made since the article has been seized from the possession of the petitioner. The article ought to have been released to the petitioner. However, in the case relied upon by the petitioner is for the ratio and regarding the disposal of property under Section 457 of the Cr.P.C here in the fact and circumstance of the case reported in 1996 Cr. L. J. 740 (Keshu Lal V. State of Rajasthan) a proceeding under Section 109 of the Cr.P.C was initiated and 37 articles and five articles of silver were seized by the police under Section 102 of the Cr.P.C suspecting it to be stolen property. The proceeding under Section 109 of the Cr.P.C terminated after six months and thereafter a petition was moved under Section 102 of the Cr.P.C for release of the movable property seized from the 3 petitioner in that case and there the argument was advanced by the State that the property seized by police under Section 102 of the Cr.P.C is to be released as contemplated under Section 451 and 452 of the Cr.P.C. however, it was held that since neither any enquiry or trial is pending Section 457 of the Cr.P.C shall apply and 457 empowers the Magistrate regarding the disposal of the property and 457 of the Cr.P.C after the fag end of the trial when the trial terminated and under Section 457 of the Cr.P.C the proclamation can only be made at the fag end of the trial when the enquiry or trial ends and hence taking into consideration of fact and circumstance of the case at hand that the case is still at the stage of trial as the case is fixed for evidence and the trial having not concluded, so Section 457 of the Cr.P.C will not be applicable for the petitioner and hence, the decision and ratio decided in 1996 Cr. L. J. 740 is not applicable in the facts and circumstance. Moreover, the claim of the petitioner has earlier been rejected in this regard and no new ground has been made out and the ground made out in the petition has earlier been taken and the same was rejected by the Hon’ble High Court earlier in Cr. Misc. No. 8906 of 2004 and hence, I do not find any merit to interfere with the impugned order, however, the trial court is directed to expedite the trial to conclude the trial preferably within six months. Kundan (Gopal Prasad, J.)