Manisana, J.@mdashThis revision petition arises from an order of the chief Judicial Magistrate Darrang made on 22.12.90 in case No. 1971 of
1981 directing the Petitioner Sheikh Mohammad Alam to Produce the vehicle before the Court with a view to deliver the same to the opposite
party Md. Afajuddin Ahmed.
2. Facts--In connection with CR Case No 1971 of 1978 instituted by the complainant Mohamad Alam in the Court of the Chief Judicial
Magistrate Darrang against Binod Prasad and his brother, a truck bearing registration mark ASU 5721 was seized from the possession of the
Respondent Afajuddin who was not a party in the case. On 28.5.89, the trial Judge acquitted the accused of all the charges and after the
conclusion of the trial, the trial Judge passed an order for delivery of the vehicle to the Respondent Afajuddin Ahmed from whom the vehicle was
seized. On appeal filed by the complainant-Petitioner, the Sessions Judge dismissed the appeal, Being aggrieved by the order of the Sessions
Judge Criminal Revision No 371 of 1990 was filed in this Court and this Court dismissed the revision petitions on 31.10.90. Thereafter, the
Petitioner Sheikh Mohammad Alam filed Title Suit No 36 of 1990 in the Court of the Assistant District Judge Darrang against the accused in the
Criminal case imp leading the Respondent as a party. In the suit the Petitioner filed an application under Order 39 Rule 1 and 2 for the injunction
being Mis (J) No 20/90. On 11.5.90 the trial Court issued an exparte interim injunction. The ad interim injunction runs as follows:
So an ad interim injunction is granted restraining the Defendants opposite parties, their servants, agents, workmen, employees from interfering with
the possession of the vehicle tata Truck No ASU 5721 for taking delivery of the vehicle from the Plaintiff-Petitioner until further order.
On 22.12.99, on the application of the Respondents, the Chief Judicial Magistrate made an order in CR Case No 1971 of 1988 referred to above
directing the Petitioner to produce the vehicle on 29.12.90 for delivery of the same to the Respondent herein. But on 29.12.90, the Petitioner was
absent and therefore, 8.1.91 was fixed for the production of the vehicle by the Petitioner. Hence this petition.
3. The interim custody of the vehicle given to the Petitioner during the pendency of the trial u/s 451, Code of Criminal Procedure, in my judgment,
is custodia legis. viz, property considered to be in the custody of the Court. Therefore, a party may be effected by the interim order of a Magistrate
u/s 451 and may cause some inconveniences or to some extent prejudice one party but the possession of the vehicle can be treated as a
possession of the party finally declared to be entitled to possession thereof u/s 432, Code of Criminal Procedure. It is also equally true that a
Criminal Court cannot satisfactorily decide the question of title to the vehicle in a proceeding u/s 452 as the proceeding u/s 452 is not a legal
process which is suited for au adjudication of complicated question and order passed u/s 452 of the Code of Criminal Procedure does not confer
title on any person, Therefore, the unsuccessful party may move to the Civil Court for appropriate relief. The Civil Court has jurisdiction to give a
finding different from what the Magistrate had reached, i.e. the decree of the Civil Court is bin-ding on the Criminal Court in such a matter.
4. The question then is--Whether the concluded order u/s 452 after the trial made by a Magistrate of competent jurisdiction should be set at naught
merely because an unsuccessful party has approached the Civil Court ? It would depend upon the circumstance of its case.
5. For the implementation or execution of the concluded order of the Magistrate u/s 452, the Respondent filed the application for delivery of the
vehicle to him. The injunction may amount to restraining the Respondent from prosecuting a judicial procceding pending before the institution of the
suit. However, I am not expressing any opinion as to such an interim Injunction can be passed in view of the provisions under Clauses (a) and (b)
of Section 43 of the Specific Relief Act at this stage. On the facts and in the circumstance of the case, I am of view that at this stage if it is ordered
and directed that the Magistrate shall take the vehicle in to his custody and keep the same under police custody or otherwise as he seems fit
without delivery of the vehicle to any one of the parties till disposal of interim injunction matter by the trial Court, it will be proper, I do so
accordingly.
6. In the result, the learned Chief Judicial Magistrate Darrang shall have the custody of the vehicle in question till the disposal of the injunction
matter by the trial Court as directed above and then shall dispose of the vehicle according to the result of the injunction matter.
This disposes of the petition.