Custodia legis does not bar statutory enforcement powers where the court preserves regulated access to seized property.

Property produced before a criminal court remains in custodia legis for safe keeping and further orders under Section 51 CrPC, but that custody does not eliminate another statutory authority's powers under its own enactment. The court retained control over the gold articles by directing production before the Sessions Court Registrar, while the Gold Control authorities were permitted to seek court approval for testing, weighing and other necessary operations under the Gold Control law. The arrangement preserved judicial custody of the property and allowed regulated enforcement action without displacing the Sessions Court's control over the seized articles.

---

---

Issues: Whether gold articles produced before the Sessions Court remained in custodia legis so as to preclude the Gold Control authorities from exercising statutory powers of seizure and investigation, and what directions were to balance the court's custody of the property with the authorities' powers under the Gold Control law.

Analysis: Property produced before a court is under the court's custody for purposes of safe keeping and further orders under Section 51 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973. That custody does not extinguish the statutory powers of another enforcement agency to proceed under its own enactment where the same property may attract action under a different law. A practical accommodation was necessary so that the Sessions Court retained control over the property while the Gold Control authorities could lawfully discharge their functions, including testing, weighing and other operations under the Gold Control Act.

Conclusion: The gold brief case was directed to be produced before the Registrar of the Sessions Court and accepted as property in the sessions case, while the Gold Control authorities were permitted to move the Sessions Court for necessary testing, weighing and other operations. The petitioner was not granted any separate liberty beyond the court's control over the property.

Final Conclusion: The writ petition succeeded to the extent of securing the court's custody of the property and enabling a regulated procedure for the Gold Control authorities to act without ousting the Sessions Court's control over the seized articles.

Ratio Decidendi: Property in custodia legis remains under the court's control, but that custody does not bar another statutory authority from exercising its lawful powers in relation to the same property if the court preserves a regulated mechanism for such action.

---