SAYED HYDER HUSSAIN vs STATE OF ORISSA AND ANOTHER
- Bench: Justice A Pasayat
- Appellant: Sayad Hyder Hussain
- Respondent: State of Orissa And Anr.
Issue
- Whether there was any default in payment by the petitioner?
- Was the seizure of the property justified?
- Whether under Sections 397 and 401 of CrPc, was the Subdivisional Judicial Magistrate justified in holding that opposition party was entitled to get the possession of the seized bus during proceedings?
Facts
- The bus was sold to the petitioner by Uttam Dash for Rs 2,50,00 and it was agreed that the petitioner would initially pay Rs 50,000 and subsequent amounts would be paid through installments.
- If there was a failure of payment, it was agreed that Uttam Dash would take back the possession of the bus.
- To the petitioner's surprise, Uttam Dash took away the bus forcefully from the petitioner when the petitioner was in lawful possession of the bus.
- A complaint was lodged and a case was lodged under Section 379 of IPC, further, the Magistrate directed release of the vehicle in favour of Uttam and his associates on the execution of a bond of Rs. 1 lakh with a direction to produce the same as and when directed.
Appellant's Contentions
- The appellant challenged the said order of the Magistrate and claimed that the possession should have been transferred to him during the trial.
- He questioned the justification of seizure of vehicle by Uttam and was concerned about the release of the vehicle to the other party during the trial.
- The petitioner's counsel also mentioned that Section 457 of CrPc had no application in this case and that the said provision comes into operation whenever the seizure of property by any Police Officer is reported to a Magistrate under the provisions of the Code, and the property is not produced before a Criminal Court during enquiry or trial.
Respondent's Contentions
- Uttam filed an application under Section 457 of CrPc seeking to release the vehicle.
- The Magistrate ordered for the release of the vehicle in favour of Uttam.
- The Magistrate released the vehicle after a careful inspection of the vehicle's documents and said that Uttam was eligible to get the vehicle in his favour.
Judgement
The court opined that there was no dispute in the agreement of sale and ordered for handing over of vehicle to the petitioner on receiving the security of Rs 1,00,000.
Relevant Paragraphs
Section 397 of CrPC
397. Calling for records to exercise powers of revision.
(1) The High Court or any Sessions Judge may call for and examine the record of any proceeding before any inferior Criminal Court situate within its or his local jurisdiction for the purpose of satisfying itself or himself as to the correctness, legality or propriety of any finding, sentence or order,- recorded or passed, and as to the regularity of any proceedings of such inferior Court, and may, when calling for such record, direct that the execution of any sentence or order be suspended, and if the accused is in confinement, that he be released on bail or on his own bond pending the examination of the record. Explanation.- All Magistrates whether Executive or Judicial, and whether exercising original or appellate jurisdiction, shall be deemed to be inferior to the Sessions Judge for the purposes of this sub-section and of section 398.
(2) The powers of revision conferred by sub-section (1) shall not be exercised in relation to any interlocutory order passed in any appeal, inquiry, trial or other proceedings.
(3) If an application under this section has been made by any person either to the High Court or to the Sessions Judge, no further application by the same person shall be entertained by the other of them.397. Calling for records to exercise powers of revision.
To read the complete Judgment Click On The Link Below!
Click Here
