@JUDGMENTTAG-ORDER
N. Arumugham , J.@mdashInvoking the inherent power of this Court under S. 482 of the Criminal P.C., the petitioner, the Manager of the Tamil
Nadu Mercantile Bank, Madurai has filed the present petition to set aside the impugned order passed by the learned Sessions Judge, Trichy in
Crl.R.C. No. 26 of 1993 dated 15-6-1993 confirming the order of the learned Judicial Magistrate, Manapparai made in Crl.M.P. No. 2960 of
1993 dated 13-1-1993 which was filed on his behalf under S. 451 of Criminal P.C. praying for the interim custody of a cash property of Rs.
33,35,766.25/- in the judicial custody.
2. The short facts which lead to this petition as culled out from the records of the Courts below are stated as follows. A total sum of Rs.
95,00,000/- was transmitted by the Tamil Nadu Mercantile Bank, Madurai Branch through a matador van bearing registration No. TN 69-6105
accompanied and escorted by the staff of the said Bank on 12-2-1992. While the van was coming along the main road within the jurisdiction of the
respondent police, an incident of highway robbery had taken place by intercepting the said van by about 13 persons armed with weapons and fire-
arms at about 9 a.m. on that day and consequently, except a portion of the cash which merely consisted of currency of various denominations duly
bundled and packed in several trunk boxes, the major portion of the cash having been decamped and robbed by the accused persons.
Consequently, the law was set in motion and the investigating machinery was geared up and during the said sojourn, 13 persons were arrested and
they have accordingly figured as accused in this case for the various offences under Sections 120-B, 395, 397 read with 107 of the Penal Code
and Sections 3, 25(1)(b) of the Arms Act and so on. During the course of investigation, from the 18 accused above referred and from the
prosecution witnesses numbering about 60 in all, a total sum of Rupees 33,55,766.25/- were seized and recovered being the part of the looted
property followed by the said accused being lodged in judicial custody. Completing the investigation, charge-sheet, according to the learned
Additional Public Prosecutor has been filed before the trial Court and the trial is yet to commence very shortly. The accused also were on bail
complying the conditions and are yet to face the trial. In this backdrop, a petition under S. 451 of the Criminal P.C. was filed before the learned
Judicial Magistrate, Manapparai in Crl.M.P. No. 2960 of 1993 by and on behalf of the petitioner praying for the interim custody of the said cash
which the learned Magistrate had declined to accept and consequently, a revision in Crl.R.C. No. 26 of 1993 was filed by and on behalf of the
petitioner before the learned Sessions Judge, Trichy and on reassessing the order passed by the learned Magistrate in the light of the circumstances
and the facts of the case, the learned Sessions Judge also declined to accept the prayer asked for by the petitioner. Aggrieved by this, the
petitioner seeks relief of setting aside the said impugned orders under the inherent power of this Court by filing this petition under S. 482 of the
Code.
3. Mr. R. Gandhi, learned Senior Counsel appearing on behalf of the petitioner fervently contended before me while seeking the remedy of setting
aside the impugned orders that both the courts below erred seriously in acceding the request of the petitioner for the interim custody of the
property in the sense that the order passed by the learned Judicial Magistrate in keeping the cash above referred in the safety locker amounts to
the cash losing the interest every day and by which every person who deposit money into the bank as well as the Bank were actually the losers and
in the context if it is viewed, the interim custody of the said property can be entrusted with the petitioner on furnishing the proper and suitable bond
and security for the return of the same. Per contra, Mr. Raghupathy, learned Addl. Public Prosecutor would contend that if the prayer asked for by
the petitioner is acceded, it was apprehended that no fair trial could be conducted in this case for the simple reason that the part of the looted
money now in the judicial custody was recovered not only from the 13 accused facing the trial in this case, but also from 60 witnesses examined in
and around the area of the place of occurrence and other parts of the State in various denominations under separate seizure of mahazars attested
by the witnesses and that if that was the position, if the money was ordered to he returned on the basis of whatever conditions or securities, then
the quantum of the cash alone may be made available to the court but not the actual properties recovered from the accused as well as from the
witnesses and in case if the accused denied it or the witnesses denied it, it will become very difficult for the prosecution to establish its case. For the
abovesaid reason, the learned Addl. Public Prosecutor objects the prayer being projected by the learned Senior Counsel.
4. In the light of the above rival contention, the only question which arises for consideration in this case is that whether the impugned order is liable
to be set aside under S. 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure under the present circumstances ?
5. To appreciate the point raised in this case, it has become necessary for me to advert to Section 451 of the Code of Criminal Procedure which
reads as follows :-
An order for custody and disposal of property pending trial in certain cases. -
When any property is produced before any Criminal Court during any inquiry or trial, the court may make such an order as it thinks fit for the
proper custody of such property pending the conclusion of the inquiry or trial, and, if the property is subject to speedy and natural decay, or if it is
otherwise expedient so to do, the court may, after recording such evidence as it thinks necessary, order it to be sold or otherwise disposed of.
Explanation. - For the purpose of this Section, property includes - (a) property of any kind of document which is produced before the Court or
which is in its custody, (b) any property regarding which the offence appears to have been committed or which appears to have been used for the
commission of an offence.
6. If one can have a casual look at this section of law, with the explanation provided therefore, explanation (b) provided to the main section clearly
applied to the facts of the present case and that therefore the cash of Rs. 33,55,766.25/- is clearly deemed to be the ""property"" involves in this
case and since it was to be under the judicial custody in a safety locker, S. 451 of the Code clearly attracted. If it is so, one has to render the
workings adumbrated in the main section viz. an obligation inbuilt in the said section empowering the Court to make such order as it thinks fit which
would clearly mean depending upon the circumstances and facts of each case. Therefore, it cannot be made as a general universal rule that any
property which is produced before the trial Court involved in such case can automatically be ordered to be returned under the section. The power
given to this Court is limited to the extent that while passing such order under this Section, the Court must give proper and adequate reason for
returning such property by way of interim custody. In this context, if the undisputed factual aspects of this case is considered, particularly when it is
specifically alleged that the property viz. Rs. 33,55,766.25/- is recovered from the 13 accused who are facing the trial and 60 witnesses on various
dates and at various times and different occasions and in various denominations under the cover of seizure mahazar, then, it would become
necessary to produce and mark the said actual properties in the Court during the time of trial and on the basis of which the examination-in-chief
and cross must be conducted. That aspect would only amount to a fair trial. If I accept the strenuous contention made by the learned Senior
Counsel that the said property if ordered, in his client''s custody on furnishing adequate security and bond, then it would fetch only an interest, then
it would not render any assistance or help to an impartial and fair trial in a very congenial atmosphere. But, on the other hand, the prosecution
would be put to severe handicap and that for the abovesaid simple reasoning, I am not in a position to accept the contentions made on behalf of
the petitioner. More so, the legislature never intended the disposal of the property in such a way. What all has been provided in the section is that
the Court must take care of the condition and nature of the property involved and the dependency (sic) of the duration of the trial while passing an
order under this section. Under the circumstances projected in the present case on behalf of the respective parties, since the charge-sheet has been
filed and the trial is yet to commence shortly and the accused are ready to face the trial. I feel that it will not be proper or conducive for me to
interfere at this stage with the impugned order passed by the courts below. Even otherwise, I do not come across any illegality or erroneous
approach in passing the impugned order which cause a serious prejudice or would result in total failure of justice. In these circumstances, keeping
in view of the legal pronouncement that the extraordinary inherent power of this Court under S. 482 of the Criminal P.C. can be used so sparingly,
I am put to every difficulty to exercise my power on the facts of the instant case for the aforesaid reasoning. Therefore, I am not inclined to
interfere with the impugned order passed by the Courts below as contended by the learned Senior Counsel.
7. In the result, the petition fails and accordingly it is rejected.
8. Petition dismissed.
