THE LAW OF SPURDARI
THE LAW OF SPURDARI
MRS. NAILA SABIR KHAN
L.L.M. Advocate High Court.
Part time Lecturer
B.Z.U. Gillani Law College, Multan
Definition. The word “Superdari” may be defined as the disposal of property connected with the offence, the person entitled by furnishing a surety bond by the order of court for the production of such property whenever necessary [AIR 1929 Lah. 658 = AIR 1931 Cal.455] ordinarily, the property must be returned by the Court to a person form whose custody it has been taken unless there are indicators to the contrary, that it did not belong to him. [1975 P. Pr.LJ 617]. After property is seized by police, orders for its disposal can only be passed by the Court and the police are expected to hold the property subject to the orders of the Magistrate [PLD 1951 Dacca 33 = PLD 1951 Madh. B.241] Dacca 106=3 DLR 97 = 1968 P.Cr.LJ 1224 = AIR 1953 Madh. B. 241]. A police office cannot himself give the property subject to the orders of the Magistrate. [PLD 1951 Dacca 33 = PLD 1951 Dacca 106 = 3 DLR 97 = 1968 P.Cr.LJ 1224 = AIR 1953 Madh. B.241]. A police officer cannot himself give the property in the custody of a person. [PLD 1951 Dacca 33 – PLR 1951 Dacca 106 = 3 DLR 87]. Sections 516-A and 517 of the Cr.P.C. deal with cases which have actually come up before the Criminal Court for inquiry or trial. While Section 516-A enables a Magistrate to provide for the interim custody of goods pending the conclusion of the inquiry or trial. Section 517 provides for the disposal of property after inquiry or trial is over. In connection with the orders under Section 516-A there is necessary no appeal because order is not final order and is subject to revision when the case is actually disposed of by the Criminal Court. Such fresh consideration of the matter will be under section 517 of the Cr.P.C. Therefore, only an order under section 517 of Cr.P.C. is made appeal able where there has been no inquiry or trial in a criminal court, the proper section to apply will be Section 523, whichever may be Act under which the seizure of property by the police during investigation without any inquiry or trial by the Magistrate. AIR 1954Cal 350.
Scope of the section. This section is only concerned with the power of direct levy of the amount. Therefore, Sessions Judge, though he can delegate the powers of collecting the final due on a forfeiture, cannot delegate the power to decide whether there was a forfeiture. Petition for leave to appeal. Custody of wagon. Question whether the petitioner was not party to the consent order passed by High Court in respect of the interim custody of the disputed wagon could not be gone into the Supreme Court at leave stage. Petitioner’s counsel apparently had appeared and represented him and he had not filed any affidavit to the effect that he had not consented to the operative part of the High Court consent order. Civil Court was seized of the matter regarding ownership of wagon in dispute Leave to appeal was refused in circumstances. 1997 PXE (Crl) 63 .
S. 439 and S.561-A Superdari of Vehicle. Order of Quashment of Petition for Revision. Dismissal of order dated 15.10.1997 passed by Session Judge in faovur of respondent regarding Superdari of truck, challenged in Cr. Misc. No.37 of 1998, already dismissed on 1.1.1999. So this revision petition becomes anfractuous and dismissed. PLR 1999 304.
Superdari continues till the case property is disposed of under section 517, Cr.P.C., Mere recommendation of police for cancellation of case does not automatically put superdari to an end the entitle superdari to retain property as of right.( SC) 1974 SCMR 238.
Order under section 517 and 520 of the Cr.P.C. do not settle any rights not do they confer any title, these previsions are for the summary disposal of the property. PLD 1996 Lah 918.
Court unable to ascertain rightful owner of the property, directing the same to be kept in malkhana until title is established by the parties in a Civil Court Order upheld by the Court.PLD 1961 Lah 205.
Person entitled to possession, Magistrate handing over property without making an inquiry to find out person entitled to its possession. Order set aside. 1969 P.Cr.L.J 747.
Courts not to go into title of property, which is to be decided by a competent civil court. Property under section 517 Cr.P.C. is to be handed over to person from whose possession it was taken over by the police. Bona fide purchaser handed over the possession from whose possession of the tractor was taken by police. PLJ 1990 Cr.c Kar.
Title of property, Question to title to property concerned is hardly desirable to be decided under section 517(1), Cr.P.C. The court is not competent to decided by an ordinary civil court of competent jurisdiction. PLD 1970 SC 343.
Disposal of crime property. Court directing that vehicle (crime property) be kept in police custody till question of title be determined finally by a Civil Court. Held proper exercise of discretion in the circumstances of the case. 1972 SCMR 159.
Custody of property u/s 6516-A is to be restored to the party form whom taken but under special circumstances when there was a lien on property (Bus chassis) by the workshop for the work having been done on it, held the High Court was right in safeguarding the interest of workshop for the work having been done on it, held the High Court was right in safeguarding the interest of workshop by ordering a band guarantee before superdari could be given. 1980 SCMR 954.
Entitlement to custody to ascertained. Ownership by itself is not enough to establish entitlement to custody. Magistrate giving cattle on superdari to applicant without sending for police record or ascertaining entitlement to custody. The Magistrate held, acted perfunctorily. Order set aside. 1976 P.C.L.J 632.
Application of complainant and accused for the possession of property alleged to be done stolen, pending decision in court, the complainant mean-while filing declaratory suit in Civil Court. Held, the Magistrate should have disposed of the application independent of the civil suit pending between the parties. PLD 1966 Lah 678.
Purchaser of stolen property form a thief cannot be given superdari of property pending the decision of the case. PLD 1976 Lah 641.
Bona fide purchaser bought a buffaloing open market. The original owner form whom it was stolen entitled to receive it. 197 P.Cr.L.J. 279.
Tractor seized form bona fide purchaser held, interim custody of such property should go the person form whom it is recovered. 1976 P.Cr.L.J. 747.
Truck seized from bona fide purchaser. Property seized normally to be given to person from whose possession it is taken unless there are special reasons for doing other wise. order passed on basis of ownership are not justified.1973 P.Cr.L.J.288.
Truck superdari u/s.516-A Cr.pc.given to the applicant as according to the documents. He is prima-facie owner of the truck, and the truck is the only means of his livelihood. PLJ 1994 Cr.c. Kar 452.
Case property to be returned by trial court U/C 516-A Cr.P.C. when appeal is accepted by the Supreme Court. PLJ 1997 FSC 30.
Rash and negligent driving. A driver is prosecuted for rash and negligent driving. His car cannot be detained as case property. AIR 1931 Lah 565.
Confiscation of jeep is bad in law when accused charged for murderous assault with a revolver. 1971 P.Cr.l .J 19.
Car alleged to have stolen recovered, form bona fide purchasers ordered to be given person form whom recover, don superdari, till it is identified by the court as subject matter of theft. 1970 P.Cr.L.J. 452.
Custody of truck seized under Pure Food Staff Control Act, and standing in police, Malkhana given to its owner on heavy security, as the truck was liable to deteriorate in police Malkhana. 1974 P.Cr.L.J. 452.
Conveyance of offender cannot automatically be forfeited without the order of a Magistrate. PLD 1976 Pesh 144.
Superdari to truck. Case registered under section 420/406, PPC for cheating about the truck. Held, the truck should have not been recovered form the person possessing it unless a strong case of cheating was made out. 1970 SCMR 665.
Superdari of truck involved in smuggling of Charas, give to his owner only because the vehicle would deteriorate if not given on superdari. PLJ 1971 FSC 30.
Custody of truck on superdari handed over to the petitioner in writ petition on the ground that the truck was neither a stolen property nor having been used in commission of any offence and was in possession of police u/s 523/550 Cr.P.C. and as such illegal. PLJ 1997 Pesh 147.
Superdari of car taken into possession by the High Court in proceeding under section 491 Cr.P.C. High Court finding the care to have been purchased with the money of the women involved the proceedings ordering it to be placed in custody of the father of the woman till question of ownership is decided by the Civil Court, order of the High Court held proper. 1970 SCMR 293.
Superdari motor vehicle given to the person form whose possession it was take by the police, till the decision of civil court. 1992 SCMR 1454.
Custody of car. Car Recovered from petitioner but the respondent prima facie purchaser of car. Strong indications exists showing car not belonging to petitioner on day of its recovery. Order giving custody to respondent maintained. 1973 P.Cr.L.J. 617.
Car depreciates in storage. It should be given to one of the parties subject to proper security for production in court 1974-P.Cr.LJ 617 note 53.
Car used in the commission of offence owned and claimed by the person not doing anything to advocate commission of offence. Court bound to release such property for “proper custody” under section 516-Cr.P.C. order of Magistrate withholding custody of car from its owner, held entirely unjustified. 1970 P.Cr.LJ 1215.
Car used in commission of offence is not ground for refusing its custody to its owner who is not connected with crime. NLR 1989 Cr.445.
Car superdari. Dispute regarding motor-car. It is better entrust car to an automobile dealer. 1968 P.Cr.LJ 1738.
Superdari order should be passed in favour of a person entitled to its possession or form whom it was recovered unless there are strong reasons against it. Refusal by the Magistrate that the car when given on superdari will be recklessly used and depreciate in value in unlawful. PLJ 1976 Lah.181
Custody of Rickshaw taken by accused on hire and removed to another district without making payment, the accused said that it was case of civil nature of the temporary custody be allowed to remain with him. Court allowed rickshaw to be retained by accused on payment of hire charge at Rs.200 p.m. 1973 P Cr.LJ 626
Cash drawn by complainant from bank but taken by accused under threats. Recovery witness won over. Cash ordered to be returned to the brother of the deceased complainant. Accused order to establish his right in Civil Court. (DB) 1973. 1973 PCr.LJ 1
Acquittal of accused in appeal does not compel a court to restore the property to him. Each case is to be decide on its own circumstances. PLD 1950 Lah. 154
Accused acquitted on benefit doubt. Property 33.75 tolas gold given to the complainant. PLD 1963 Lah. 451
On acquittal of the accused it is not incumbent on the Court to return properly to the person from whom it was recovered. Aggrieved person may establish his title in the civil court. 1971 SCMR 774.
Conviction set aside other under section 522, Cr.P.C. must also be set aside and the property be allowed to remaining the possession of the accused. 1970 PCr.LJ 956.
The acquittal or conviction set aside other under section 522, Cr.P.C. must also be set aside and the property be allowed to remaining the possession of the accused.
The acquittal or conviction of the accused id immaterial, the court may pass an order for the disposal of the property. PLD 1969 Lah. 141
Discharge of petitioner under section 457/380, PPC entitled them to the return of the case property (currency notes) recovered from the during the police investigation. PLJ 1975 Cr.C Lah. 394
Possessions to be given to the accused. When the conventions of the accused under section 448, PPC is set aside, that the positions of the house given to the complainant under section 522, Cr.P.C. must be restored to the accused. 30 Cr.LJ 902
Crime weapon shoot gun was ordered to be confiscated to the state in the application under section 561-A Cr.P.C. for the of the crime weapons to the accused when the accused has been convicted and his appeal dismissed. PLD 1976 Pesh. 127
NO limitation is prescribed for an application under section 517(I) Cr.P.C. for the disposal of the case property. Court can pass such order till case property is the disposed of. 1976 PCr.LJ 116
No limitation is prescribed for making application under section 520. the proceedings are special nature. It is neither appeal nor in the nature of appeal. PLD 1966 Lah. 918
Limitation. Application for restoration of property made be filed within reasonable time from the date of final decision of the case. PLD 1959 Lah. 141
Order for disposal of stolen property is not be contemporaneous with announcement of orders in original case. PLD 1974 Cr.C Lah. 421
Order of superdari without notice to accused under section 523, Cr,P.C. Held to be an interlocutory order liable to be set aside by the Magistrate who rightly ordered that the vehicle should remain with the police till the disposal of the case. 1968 PCr.LJ 936
Revision competent. Order under section 523, Cr.P.C. is open to revision by High Court. PLD 1965 Lah. 425
“Any court of appeal, confirmation, reference or revision” in section 520 Cr.P.C. in not necessarily limited to Court before which an appeal or revision is pending. Section 520. Cr.P.C. gives supervisory powers to courts of appeal or revision independently of the fact whether any appeal or revision in the substantive case is pending or not. PLD 1973 Lah. 45. PLD 1974 Cr.C Lah. 421
“Court of appeal” in section 520 Cr.P.C. is not necessarily limited to a Court before which appeal is pending. Even when the substantive case is not before the court in appeal or Revision the court may interfere with the order passed under section 517 Cr.P.C. by the trial court. PLD 1950 Lah. 97, PLD 1960 CACCA 23.
No appeal. Magistrate’s order under section 517, Cr.P.C. by the Sessions Judge. 1972 P.Cr.L.J P-5.
Order under section 523 Cr.P.C. not appeal able under section 520, Cr.P.C. order set aside. 1977 PCr.LJ 168
“Court of appeal or revision” section 520 and 517 Cr.P.C.) words “Courts of appeal or revision” not necessarily limited to a court before which an appeal or revision is pending. Powers of courts of appeal or revision to correct errors of court below respect of orders passed under 517 with regard to stolen property exists independent of the fact whether or not an appeal or revision in the substantive case is pending. PLJ 1974 Cr.C. Lah. 421, PLD 1975 Lah. 45.
Section 520, Cr.P.C. does provided for an appeal or revision against orders regarding disposal of property. Petitioner acquitted by High Court for offence under section 411 PPC the magistrate meanwhile ordered the delivery of the property direct to the High Court by the petitioner competent. PLD 1958 Lah. 212
Discretion of the Judge for disposal of property. The Judge has the discretion in the disposal of the property and he may in the circumstances of the case order the property to the given to a person other than the one from whose possession it was found, even through the man may not have been found guilty. PLD 1953 Sindh. 25
Order cannot be revised by magistrate. Magistrate making order under section 523 reviving revising it and without giving notice to the petitioner in whose favour earlier order was made, order held illegal and set aside. 1977 P.Cr.LJ 1253
Recovered property directed to be returned to owner of the property. The property had been taken from the house of the deceased. Neither any offence had been committed regarding this property nor it had been used in the commission of the offence, therefore provision of Sec.516-A, Cr.P.C. were not applicable to the disposal of the property. 1996 SCMR 1544
Under section 561-A Cr.P.C. an order for the temporary custody of the property is to be, [1973 P.Cr.LJ 626] while under section 523, Cr.P.C. and order to be made for disposal for the property in certain circumstances, or for the delivery of its possession to the person entitled to possession, for instance, when the case is not sent up for trial. It may be observed that entitlement to possession cannot be adequate with ownership. A stage might well arise in the case after an order passed by the Court under section 523, Cr.P.C. during investigation delivering possession of the property to a person in made that he may be sent up for trial. In such an eventuality, the court would not be helpless to pass another order under section 517, Cr.P.C. on the conclusion of the inquiry or trail. [1968 P.Cr.L.J 936].
Temporary custody allowed to be retained by accused in circumstances, pending hearing of complainant or condition of his furnishing security any payment of hiring charges fixed at Rs.200 p.m. 1973 PCr.LJ 626
Order for custody and disposal of property pending trail in certain cases.
When any property regarding which any offence appears to have been committed or which appears to have been used for the commission of and offence, is produced before any Criminal Court during any inquiry or trial, and of the property it subject to speedy or natural decay, may, after recording such evidence as it thinks necessary, order is to be sold otherwise disposed of [Section 516-A, Cr.P.C.]
Section 516-A of the Cr.P.C. provides for the custody or disposal pending an inquiry or trail of the property specified in this section [1968 P.Cr.L.J 1224 – AIR 1931 Cal.455] thus where regarding a property a report had been filed under section 448, Cr.P.C. and the case was till pending the trail Court has the power to dispose of the property under Section 448, Cr.P.C. This section, however, does not empower the Court to pass orders only if the property is produced before to which the section refers is the property regarding which any offence appears to have been committed or which appears to have been committed or which appears to have been used for the commission of any offence. AIR 1963 Raj 13.
It is well established rule in all civilized countries of the world that property recovered from the possession of the person charged with a crime is retained intact in Court for purposes of identification until such time as the case is concluded. If the property is subject to speedy or natural decay to is open the court to make an order for its sale or disposal, but if the property does not answer this description the Court can only make an order for its custody pending the conclusion of inquiry or trial, where there is no Criminal proceeding pending and no property has been seized by the police, there is no provision enabling the Court to pass an order of disposal of any property.
When as accused has been charged with cheating or Criminal breach of trust does not give jurisdiction to the magistrate, inquiring into case to pass a stop order on the bank in order to prevent a accuse from operating on his bank account. Circumstances of urgency may necessitate the passing of an ex.parte order under section 516-A Cr.P.C. but such order can only be an interim order subject to vacation or confirmation after hearing the parties concerned.
Applications of complainant and accused for the possession of the property alleged to be stolen, pending decision in court the complainant meanwhile filing declaratory suit in Civil Court. Magistrate not deciding the case but referring parties to obtain the verdict of Civil Court. Held, the Magistrate should have disposal of the application independent of the Civil Suit pending between the parties. AIR 1963 Raj 13.
When property is seized by police, orders for its disposal can only be passed by the Court and the police are expected to hold the property subjected to the order of the Magistrate. PLD 1951 Dacca 33 = PLD 1951 Dacca 106 = 3 DLR 87 – 1968 P.Cr.LJ 1224 = 1224 = AIR 1953 Madh B.241]. A Police Officer cannot himself give the property in the custody of a person. PLD-1951-Dacca 33, PLR 1951 Dacca 106, 3DLR 87,
Delivery of property, Property seized normally to be given persona from whose possession it is taken unless there are special reasons for doing otherwise order passed on basis of ownership not justified. 1973 PCr.LJ 288.
Temporary Custody. Temporary Custody of the property is to be made during the pendency of the inquiry or trail, as the case may be temporary custody also allowed to be retained by accused in circumstances, pending hearing of complaint on condition of his furnishing security and payment of hearing charges fixed at Rs.200 p.m. 1973 PCr.L.J.626
Property uses for omission of any offence. The property can be obtained only if it has been used for the commission of any offence [PLD 1968 Lah.185 = 20 DLR W.P.84]. In a prosecution of a motor driver for an offence under section 338 of the PPC the car cannot be said to have been used by the accused for the commission of the offence with meaning of section 516-A Cr.P.C. if is illegal therefore, for the Magistrate to detain the motor car pending conclusion of the trail. [AIR 1931 Lah, 565] Property allegedly used in commission of offence owned and claimed by person not doing anything to advance commission of offence. Court bound to release such property for proper custody of car from its owner, held, entirely unjustified in circumstances, [1970 P.Cr.LJ 1215, Lah] where a motor truck of a businessman had been detained for a long period on the ground that it was required as an exhibit in case against the driver under Arms Act, in respect of a revolver an some true cartridges found in it, it was held that, the order of detention was neither proper no reasonable, particularly when a previous order for its release had been passed upon security and the security had been finished. AIR 1949 Pat. 44
Similarly a bus cannot be detained where the allegations against the driver of the bus are that he was not warning the prescribed uniform and that he refused to produce the driving license, and against the conductor that he was carrying 59 passengers though the permit was 48 passengers and that certain bundles were placed on the top which exceeded the permissible height. There was no allegation that any offence of have been committed regarding the bus, nor was there any allegation to the effect that there was any mechanical defect in the bus. AIR 1963 Raj 13.
Taxi car allegedly purchased on installment basis but terms of purchase neither record in writing nor fully payment established. Owners, no other hand establishing ownership by producing sale deed, registration certificate, and permit for plying. No valid justification, held existed for withholding possession of Taxi Car from owner during pendency of Criminal proceedings —- owner restored the possession but ordered to furnish bank guarantee for safe-guard of interest of other claimants – criminal procedure Code, Sections 439 and 561-A. 1972 PCr.J 678 Kar.
Vehicle used, vehicle used for going to and escaping from the place of incident is not covered by expression “Property used for the commission of an Offence”. 1971 PCrLJ 19 (DB).
Superdari of Car. Taken into possession by High Court in proceedings under section 491 Cr.P.C. finding the car to have been purchased with the money of the woman involved in the proceeding ordering it to be placed in the custody of the father of the woman till question of ownership was decided by the civil court. Order of the High Court held proper. 197 SCMR 293 (SC)
Custody of Car. Car recovered form petitioner but respondent prima-facie purchaser of car. Strong indication exist showing car not belonging to petitioner on day of its recovery. Order giving custody to respondent maintained. 1973 PCr.J 617
Car depreciates in storage. It should be given to one of the parties subject to proper security for production in Court. 1973 P.Cr.LJ Note 53
Car in used in commission of the offence. Owned and claimed by a person not doing anything to advance commission of offence. Court bound to release such property for “proper custody” under section 515-A Cr.P.C. order of the magistrate withholding custody of car from its owner held entire unjustified. 1970 PCr.LJ 1215.
Car Superdari. Despite regarding motor car. It is better to entrust car to an automobile dealer. 1968 PCr.LJ 1738 (SC)
Superdari order should be passed in favour of a person entitled to its possession of from whom it was recovered unless there are strong reason against it refusal by Magistrate that the car when given on superdari will be recklessly used and depreciate in value is un-lawful. PLJ 1976 Lah. 181
Superdari, proper custody, Taxi car belonging to petitioner used for going to and escaping form place of incident by some culprits. Allegation, held was not converted by words, which appears to have been sue do commission of any office used in section 516 Cr.P.C. custody of car handed over to petitioner. 1989 PCr.LJ 1110.
Section 516-A & 517 Constitution of Pakistan 1973 Art. 199 Custom of bus after hearing parties including petitioners. Second other passed S.D.M. directing to keep bus in police custody. Impugned order interfered with as adequate remedy was available against second order which could rerecorded to WRIT PETITION, held, was not maintainable in circumstances. 1989 P.Cr.L.J 549.
Custody of Rickshaw taken by accused on hire. And removed another district without making payment. Accused side it was a case of civil nature, the temporary custody be allowed to remain with him. Court allowed rickshaw to be retained by accused on payment of hire charges at Rs.200 p.m. 1973 PCr.LJ 626.
Rash and negligent driving. A driver is prosecuted for rash and negligent driving. His car cannot be detained as case property.
Confiscation of jeep. Is bad in law when accused is charged for murderous assault with a revolver. AIR 1931 Lah. 565.
Confiscation of Jeep. Is bad in law when accuse is charged for murderous assault with a revolver. 1971 PCr.LJ 19
Car alleged to have been stolen recovered form bonafide purchaser order to be given to form whom recovered, on superdari, till it is identified by the court as subjected – matter of theft. 1970 PCrLJ 875.
Custody of truck. Seized under foodstuff control Act, and standing in police Malkahan, given to its owner on heavy security, as the truck was liable to deteriorate in police Malkhana. 1976 PCr.LJ 452.
Offence under section 3 and 6, West Pakistan Food Control Act 1958. Truck handed over to owner as it would deteriorate if kept in Malkhana. PLD 1974 Cr.C Lah. 53.
Conveyance of offender. Cannot automatically be forfeited without the order of a Magistrate. PLD 1976 Pesh. 144.
Entitlement to custody not ascertained. Ownership by itself is not enough to establish entitlement to custody. Magistrate giving cattle on superdari to applicant without sending for police record or ascertaining entitlement to custody the Magistrate held, acted perfunctorily order set aside. 1976 P.Cr.LJ 632.
Section 516-A does apply where the matter does not go up to the stage of inquiry or trial in a Criminal. [AIR 1938 Cal.17=AIR 1942 Bom 42] or where the property is brought into the court by the police and proceedings under section 512 in which it is not open to the magistrate to give any finding of fact as regards the guilt of the accused or other wise. (AIR1958 Madh. PRA. 39) where the magistrate after receiving a complaint in respect of the theft of the lorry issued a such warrant as a result of which ascertain lorry was seized but on objection the magistrate ordered the delivery of the lorry. To the objector on his furnishing security purporting to act under section 516-A the order for delivery is passed because during the pendency of an enquiry although this stage of the trial and not been reach, and to the order is covered by section 561-A. AIR 1958 Andh. L.T 479.
Custody of crime weapon distinguishable from custody of any other property involved in crime such as motor car or any other means of transport magistrate refuses to hand over weapon offence to accused on superdari pending inquiry and trial of case. Order of magistrate held perfectly reasonable. 1971 PCrLJ 255 Lah. AIR 1931 Lah. 565, AIR 1949 Pat. 44, PLD 1965 Lah. 425.
Superdari of case property given to petitioner. By trial court sessions court on revision setting aside superdari order. High court setting aside order of session court and restoring superdari order on the trial court. NLR 1991 Cr.LJ 702.
Comparison of section 561-A and 523 Cr.P.C. 516-A/D with cases which have actually before the criminal code for inquiry or trial. 1968 P.Cr.LJ 936, AIR 1954 CAL 350.
While section 516-A enables the magistrate to provide for the interims custody of goods pending the conclusion of the inquiry or trial. Section 517 provides for the disposal of property after inquiry or trial is over. In connection with the order under section 516-A there is necessarily no appeal because the order is not a final order. And is subject revision when the case is actually disposed off by the criminal code. Such fresh consideration of the matter will be under section 517 of the court. Therefore, only an order under section 517 is made appealable where there has been no enquiry or trial in a criminal court, the property section to apply will be section 523, whichever may be Act under which the offence might have been committed and whatever happen in connection of seizer of property by the police during investigation without any inquiry by the magistrate. Under section 516-Cr.P.C and for the temporary custody of the property is to be made during the pendency of the inquiry or trial as the case may be while under section 523 Cr.P.C. an order is to be made for the disposal of the property in certain circumstances or for the custody of its possession for its possession to the person entitled to possession, for instance, when the case is not sent up for trial it may be sent for trial. It may be observed that entitlement to possession cannot be equated with ownership. A stage might well arise in the case after an order passed by the court under section 523 Cr.P.C. During investigation delivering possession of the property to a person is made that he may be sent up for trial. In such an eventually, the court would not helpless to pass an other order under section 517 Cr.P.C. on the conclusion of the enquiry or trial. Generally (i) if an article is recovered from a person against home there is no allegation of any crime, the custody of the same may be entrusted to such person on superdari and E.R.Bond (ii) if an article is recovered from a person and it is clear that the article was stolen, the same may be handed over to the owner on Superdari and E.R.Bond. where a trolley was recovered form the accused who had unlawfully taken possession of it, the petitioner being loss in possession of disputed property at the commission crime was prima-facie entitled to its interim custody but the generally rule that interim custody of movable property should be given to the person from home it was seized by police was not inflexible and interim custody of property could be given to an other person too when facts and circumstances of the case so warranted. Where a disputed scooter was recovered by police as stolen property. Petitioner and respondent both had purchased the scooter at different occasions for valuable consideration. The respondent was held to has preference over the petitioner being earlier purchaser from accused. Where a car was given on hire purchase basis to a by petitioner and he continue to pay the installments regularly. But subsequently an other identical agreement was made with driver of A. on a complaint by A, but where no higher purchaser agreement was executed. Between the parties and it cannot be said that the purchaser has become owner of the property on the date its removal by the owner. Has all the papers and registration etc. were is the name of the owner the court ordered that taxi be given in the superdari of the owner on his given bank guarantee for Rs.15,000/- to safe guard the interest of the other parties to the disputes. 1972 PCr.LJ 678.