Interim custody of seized goods may be ordered in inherent jurisdiction, but not under CrPC custody powers where customs holds the goods.

Section 451 CrPC applies only where property is produced before the criminal court or is in its custody, so goods remaining with customs authorities cannot be released under that provision by the Magistrate. Even so, the High Court may use its inherent powers to direct interim custody where the record prima facie supports the importer's claim, the goods are deteriorating, and the importer is not an accused, if justice so requires. Any release remains subject to lawful conditions, including prior payment of customs duty and the continued operation of a forfeiture order under the special statute.

---

---

Issues: Whether the seized goods could be directed to be returned in interim custody notwithstanding that they were not in the custody of the criminal court, and whether such custody could be granted subject to payment of customs duty and the subsisting forfeiture order.

Analysis: The statutory power under section 451 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 applies only where the property is produced before the court or is in its custody; goods lying with the customs authorities are not, for that purpose, in the court's custody or control. The Magistrate therefore lacked jurisdiction to pass the custody order under that provision. The Court nevertheless held that its inherent powers could be invoked to secure the ends of justice, since the documents on record prima facie supported the claim of the importer, the goods were shown to be deteriorating, and the importer had not been arraigned in the criminal case. At the same time, the Court recognised that release could not take effect unless customs duty was paid and so long as the forfeiture order under the special statute continued to operate.

Conclusion: Interim custody of the seized goods was directed to be given to the respondent on execution of a bond and prior payment of customs duty, but the direction would not operate while the forfeiture order remained in force.

Ratio Decidendi: Where section 451 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 is inapplicable because the property is not in the custody of the criminal court, the High Court may still exercise inherent powers to order interim custody in the interests of justice, subject to lawful impediments such as customs dues and a subsisting forfeiture order.

---