Magistrate's discretion over seized property may justify handing assets to Customs pending confiscation adjudication.

Section 523 CrPC confers wide discretion on the Magistrate in disposing of seized property. Where cash, gold sovereigns and a vehicle remained case property and were liable to adjudication under the Customs Act and foreign exchange laws, the Magistrate could hand them to the Customs authorities for custody and possible confiscation. Recording evidence of rival claimants was not treated as an inflexible requirement, particularly when the seizure facts were undisputed and the order was reasoned and based on the nature of the property and pending statutory adjudication. The order transferring custody to Customs was upheld.

---

---

Issues: Whether the Magistrate was justified in handing over the seized cash, gold sovereigns and car to the Customs authorities under Section 523 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1898, without first recording evidence of the rival claimants.

Analysis: Section 523 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1898 confers wide discretion on the Magistrate regarding disposal of property seized by the police. Where the seized property continues to retain the character of case property and is liable to adjudication under the Customs Act and the Foreign Exchange Regulations Act, the Magistrate may prudently keep it in the custody of the authority which is to determine confiscation or final disposal. In such circumstances, receipt of evidence from all claimants is not an inflexible requirement, particularly where the facts of seizure are undisputed and the order is a reasoned one based on the nature of the property and the pending statutory adjudication.

Conclusion: The Magistrate's order handing over the property to the Customs Department was proper and required no interference; the revision failed.

---