“4. High Court committed error in adjudicating the question, whether the sandalwood was legally or illegally seized or was or was not in wrongful possession or whether the seized sandalwood is or is not subject matter of criminal cases. There did not exist any evidence on record to decide or conclude any such above findings. Aggrieved by this judgment of learned Single Judge, a writ appeal was preferred by the appellant which was also dismissed. Aggrieved by this present appeal is filed. As we have observed, the High Court committed error in going into the questions and recording findings which it should not have done in exercise of its power under Article 226 of the Constitution of India. Not only High Court has decided disputed questions of fact but through its order has taken the property outside the reach of the Criminal Court. Accordingly, the said impugned orders are unsustainable in law. In fact the proper course open to the respondent was to move the criminal court under Section 451 of Criminal Procedure Code in respect of the custody of the seized sandalwood. Admitted position is, the seized goods has been produced before the concerned criminal court, then for the custody of the same Section 451 of the Criminal Procedure Code is the proper course. This Section empowers the criminal court to order for custody and disposal of property pending trial. Even if there be a dispute as in the present case whether the seized good is the property in the pending criminal case it is that criminal court alone would be competent to adjudicate and decide the issue but not the High Court under is writ jurisdiction. In view of this, we find the High Court has committed error in issuing the writ and granting the said relief to the respondent. Accordingly, the order of the learned Single Judge and the impugned judgment in writ appeal are hereby quashed. As the seized good is with respondent No. 1 he will produce the same before the Judicial Magistrate, Thiruvottiyur Chennai within three weeks from today.”
