https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=108964 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. en-us Tue, 23 Apr 2002 00:00:00 +0530 Thu, 05 Apr 2012 11:58:53 +0530 TaxTMI RSS Generator https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=108964 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. Case-Laws Companies Law Tue, 23 Apr 2002 00:00:00 +0530 https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=108964