In view of distinction as above, it is difficult to swallow the contention of Advocate Shri Bilolikar that earlier order dated 14.2.2002 was an order under Section 457 of CrPC and therefore, the impugned order amounts to review and is illegal. Such an arguments is required to be rejected as devoid of any merits. On the contrary, earlier order being order under Section 451 of CrPC the Magistrate is obliged to suo motu pass the final orders pertaining to custody of the property when he may consider "C" summary for conclusion of the enquiry and investigation. In fact, even the impugned order is an order under Section 451 of CrPC because even in this order, the Magistrate has expected respondent No.1 to execute a bond and also undertaking to produce the vehicle before the Court if required. The final order would follow under section 452 of CrPC on conclusion of trial but in the present case, on conclusion of findings of the learned Magistrate on the report submitted by police for "C" summary.
Bombay High Court
Noorkhan S/O Jafarkhan vs Sk. Jakeer Sk. Akbar on 15 January, 2003
Equivalent citations: 2003 (2) ALD Cri 65, 2003 BomCR Cri
Bench: N Dabholkar
