Custody orders over seized property remain revisable when they ermine substantive rights and cannot override winding-up custody control.

An order under section 451 of the Code of Criminal Procedure is not interlocutory where it determines substantive custody rights over seized property; such an order remains revisable under section 401. A criminal court cannot, through interim custody directions, override the custody of assets placed under the control of the High Court in winding-up proceedings, where the Official Liquidator is to take possession. For seized machinery claimed by a private party, the Magistrate must assess proper custody pending trial rather than merely title, and a finding unsupported by the record is unsustainable. The revisional court therefore held that the custody directions could not stand.

---

---

Issues: (i) whether the order passed under section 451 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 was interlocutory so as to bar revision under section 401 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973; (ii) whether the Chief Judicial Magistrate could direct release of the assets of the wound-up company in view of the winding-up order and the custody of the High Court under section 456(2) of the Companies Act, 1956; (iii) whether the direction granting supurdagi of the remaining seized machinery to the authorised representative of the private company was sustainable.

Issue (i): Whether the order passed under section 451 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 was interlocutory so as to bar revision under section 401 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973.

Analysis: The order did not merely regulate the progress of the criminal case. It determined the custody of the seized machinery, affected the rights of the parties, and had the effect of displacing custody in the face of a superior court's order. An order of this nature was held to be beyond a mere step in aid of the proceedings and could not be treated as interlocutory within the bar of section 397(2) of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973.

Conclusion: The revisions were maintainable.

Issue (ii): Whether the Chief Judicial Magistrate could direct release of the assets of the wound-up company in view of the winding-up order and the custody of the High Court under section 456(2) of the Companies Act, 1956.

Analysis: Once the company stood wound up, its assets were in the custody of the High Court and the Official Liquidator was required to take possession under the winding-up order. The Chief Judicial Magistrate could not override that custody arrangement by directing delivery of those assets to a private claimant. The finding that the private claimant had established ownership was also not accepted on the materials placed before the Court. The Magistrate thus acted beyond jurisdiction in directing release of the assets belonging to the wound-up company.

Conclusion: The release order in respect of the wound-up company's assets was unsustainable and was quashed.

Issue (iii): Whether the direction granting supurdagi of the remaining seized machinery to the authorised representative of the private company was sustainable.

Analysis: The Court held that illegality, if any, in the search did not by itself compel return of the property to the person from whose custody it was seized. The Magistrate was required to determine proper custody pending trial, not merely title. On the record, the private claimant had not established a better right to retain the disputed machinery, and the finding in its favour was arbitrary and perverse. The Magistrate therefore exceeded jurisdiction in directing delivery of the remaining seized assets to that claimant.

Conclusion: The direction granting supurdagi of the remaining seized machinery to the private claimant was quashed.

Final Conclusion: The revisional court held that the custody orders passed by the Magistrate could not stand, and the seized assets were required to be re-identified and placed under custody in accordance with the winding-up proceedings and the respective nature of the assets.

Ratio Decidendi: An order under section 451 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 is revisable where it determines substantive custody rights and affects legal possession, and a criminal court cannot, in the guise of interim custody, override the custody of assets placed under the control of the High Court in winding-up proceedings.

---