Custody of seized property must follow the correct procedural provision; customs release remedies remain available during adjudication.

Seized property not yet before a criminal court in an inquiry or trial cannot be dealt with under Section 451 of the Criminal Procedure Code; the proper procedural route is Section 457 for deciding entitlement to possession. The note also states that, where customs adjudication has commenced, release of seized goods may be sought before the Adjudicating Authority under Section 110-A of the Customs Act, subject to proof of ownership and compliance with release conditions. Observations characterising the gold as smuggled are described as premature and not determinative of the customs adjudication process.

---

---

Issues: (i) Whether the Magistrate could deal with a claim for custody of property seized under Section 102(3) of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973, under Section 451 of that Code when no inquiry or trial was pending; (ii) whether the petitioner could pursue release of the goods under Section 110-A of the Customs Act, 1962, and whether the observations treating the gold as smuggled were sustainable.

Issue (i): Whether the Magistrate could deal with a claim for custody of property seized under Section 102(3) of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973, under Section 451 of that Code when no inquiry or trial was pending.

Analysis: Section 451 applies only when property is produced before a criminal court during an inquiry or trial for orders as to proper custody pending its conclusion. Where the proceedings have not reached the stage of inquiry or trial, Section 451 is inapplicable. In such a situation, the governing provision is Section 457, under which the court may decide who is entitled to possession of the property. The seizure and report in the case fell within Section 102(3), but the impugned order was made under Section 451 despite the absence of any inquiry or trial.

Conclusion: The order allowing custody under Section 451 was not legally sustainable, and the matter fell to be considered under Section 457.

Issue (ii): Whether the petitioner could pursue release of the goods under Section 110-A of the Customs Act, 1962, and whether the observations treating the gold as smuggled were sustainable.

Analysis: Once customs adjudication had commenced, the petitioner could seek release of the seized goods before the Adjudicating Authority under Section 110-A, subject to establishing ownership and complying with the conditions imposed for release. Observations characterising the gold as smuggled were unnecessary at that stage and could not control the adjudication process. The earlier remarks were premature and were not to be relied upon.

Conclusion: The petitioner was permitted to move the Adjudicating Authority under Section 110-A, and the adverse observations were treated as unsustainable.

Final Conclusion: The challenge to the Magistrate's order succeeded in part, the petitioner was left to work out the statutory remedy before the customs authority, and the adjudicating authority was directed to dispose of any such application expeditiously.

Ratio Decidendi: Where seized property is not before a criminal court in an inquiry or trial, custody cannot be determined under Section 451 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973, and the matter must be addressed under the provision governing possession and release in that procedural stage; parallel customs remedies remain available where the Customs Act so provides.

---