Page No.# 1/6 GAHC010051692025 2025:GAU-AS:13443 THE GAUHATI HIGH COURT (HIGH COURT OF ASSAM, NAGALAND, MIZORAM AND ARUNACHAL PRADESH) Crl. Petition No. 332 of 2025. Shobnam Ara Begum Mazumder, … … … Petitioner Age-45 years, W/o Amzadul Hussain Mazumder, R/o Hailakandi Town, Ward No. II (Lala Road), P.O, PS & Dist. Hailakandi, Assam. -Versus- 1. The Central Bureau of Investigation(CBI) … … … Respondents [To be represented by the learned PP, CBI] 2. Asab Uddin Barbhuiya, S/o Amir Uddin Barbhuiya, S.o Amir Uddin Barbhuiya, R/o Vill Borbond Part-I, P.O Borbond, PS & Dist. Hailakandi, Assam, 3. Hajira Begum Laskar, C/o Abdus Salam Laskar, R/o Vill. Jamira Part-II, P.O Jamira Bazar, P.S. Ramnathpur, Dist, Hailakandi, Assam, Pin- 788 162. For the Petitioner : Mr. M.H. Laskar, Advocate. For the Respondents : Ms. M. Kumar, Standing Counsel, CBI. Mr. A.M. Barbhuiya for Respondent No. 2. Date of hearing : 16.09.2025. Date of judgment : 26.09.2025. Page No.# 2/6 -BEFORE- HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE SANJEEV KUMAR SHARMA JUDGMENT & ORDER (CAV) Heard Mr. M.H. Laskar, learned counsel for the petitioner. Also heard Mr. A.M. Barbhuiya, learned Additional Public Prosecutor, Assam and Ms. M. Kumari, learned Standing Counsel, CBI for respondent No. 1. 2. The instant petition is filed by Smt. Shobnam Ara Begum Mazumder, W/o accused Sh. Amzadul Hussain Mazumder under Section 528 of BNSS, 2023 seeking quashing of the impugned order dated 25.02.2025 passed by the Ld. Special Judge, CBI, Assam, Addl. Court No.1, Guwahati whereby the prayer for zimma of the vehicles of the petitioner was rejected. Further, orders dated 02.01.2025 & 24.01.2025 passed by the Ld. Special Judge, CBI, Assam, Addl. Court No. 1, Guwahati, vide which zimma of the vehicles were granted to the owners of the vehicles, have also been challenged. 3. The prosecution case is that during investigation of Hailakandi P.S FIR No. 201/2024, Assam Police had seized 06 vehicles including the said two vehicles in question viz. (1) Mahindra Scorpio bearing registration No. AS-01-EX-8657 and (2) Toyota Innova Crysta bearing registration no. AS-11-W-7228 on 28.09.2024 from the petitioner Smt. Shobnam Ara Begum Mazumder, w/o accused Sh. Amzadul Hussain Mazumder. Page No.# 3/6 4. It is submitted that vide order dated 02.01.2025, learned Special Judge, CBI, Assam, Addl. Court No. 1, Guwahati directed CBI to handover the Toyota Innova Crysta vehicle bearing registration no. AS-11-W-7228 to its registered owner. Further, vide order dated 24.01.2025, learend Special Judge, CBI, Assam, Addl. Court No. 1, Guwahati directed CBI to handover the Mahindra Scorpio vehicle bearing registration no. AS-01-EX-8657 to its registered owner. 5. It is submitted that during investigation conducted by CBI, it was ascertained from RTO office, Cachar that registered owner of Toyota Innova Crysta vehicle bearing registration No. AS-11W-7228 is Smt. Hazira Begum Laskar. Similarly, it was also ascertained from RTO office, Kamrup (M) that registered owner of Mahindra Scorpio vehicle bearing registration No. AS-01EX-8657 is Asab Uddin Barbhuiya. 6. It is also submitted that vide order dated 25.02.2025 passed by learned Special Judge, CBI, Assam, Addl. Court No. 1, Guwahati, petition of Smt. Shobnam Ara Begum Majumder for granting zimma of the vehicles to the petitioner was also dismissed. 7. It is also submitted that said two vehicles in questions have already been released by CBI to its registered owners in compliance of the orders dated 02.01.2025 and 24.01.2025 passed by Ld. Special Judge, CBI, Assam, Addl. Court No. 1, Guwahati. 8. A perusal of the impugned Order dated to 02.01.2025 passed by the learned Special Judge, CBI, would go to show that the Zimma application of the petitioner was rejected by holding that although the custody of the vehicle is to be given to the Page No.# 4/6 person entitled for possession, the law remains that in view of the decision in Adalat Prasad Vs. Rooplal Jindal & Others, reported in (2004) 7 SCC 338, the criminal court has no power to revisit and recall its own order by sitting as a revisional court and neither does it have any inherent powers in such matters which will amount to revision of its own order. 9. Mr. M.H. Laskar, learned counsel for the petitioner has placed reliance on a decision of the Hon’ble Delhi High Court in Sandeep Singh Vs. State of NCT of Delhi and Another decided on 18.05.2022 in Criminal Misc. Case No. 174/2021, wherein a Single Bench of the said High Court has held at paragraphs 14 and 15 as follows: “14. In Smt. Anisa Begum (supra), a number of divergent of judicial opinions were considered, one line of decisions holding that an order under Section 451 Cr.P.C. was purely interlocutory in nature and the other, holding that it is a final order or an intermediate order which affected the valuable rights of the parties to hold and keep the property during the pendency of the case. It was then held that the order under Section 451 CrPC was essentially interlocutory in nature, as it did not permit any final determination of the rights of the parties. Nevertheless, a decision under Section 451 CrPC would be as per the discretion of the court, which no doubt, has to be judiciously exercised. The purpose of handing over custody of the goods/property is to enable its production before the court during trial. Such custody is kept by the superdar only on behalf of the court. The superdar is bound to produce the property as and when so directed by the court. The court of course has the right to recall such entrustment. Page No.# 5/6 15. There can be no doubt, an order under Section 451 CrPC is of an interlocutory nature, since the whole purpose is for safe custody of the goods/property during the pendency of the trial, as it is Section 452 CrPC which would come into play, when the goods/property is to be disposed of at the conclusion of the trial. The Trial Court would not be powerless to modify orders of custody as per changed circumstances. The Trial Court has the powers to recall entrustment, as held in Smt. Anisa Begum (Supra). For instance, there could be circumstances where the superdar is not in a position to keep the custody of the goods/property and seeks to surrender it into the court. Would the Trial Court be powerless to hand it over to some other person on the same terms as earlier or on different modified terms? Similarly, where the court finds that the initial order was passed on account of certain mistaken notions, as in the present case, that the partnership firm was in existence and the petitioner alone had a right to the moulds and also in view of the fact that the respondent No.2 who also had an equal status as a partner in the erstwhile partnership firm to claim custody, was denied even a hearing, it cannot be said that the modification of this interlocutory order would be possible only, by approaching the High Court under Section 482 CrPC. Orders that would only smoothen the process of trial cannot be rendered so complicated. In fact, the power to modify orders passed under Section 451 CrPC, is inherent in the provision as the purpose is only safe custody and production "during trial". This is unlike the orders of summoning in respect of which Adalat Prasad (supra) and subsequent judgments have held that recall of orders is not possible.” 10. I am inclined to agree with the reasoning adopted by the Hon’ble Delhi High Court and to hold that it is well within the powers of the criminal court to revisit orders Page No.# 6/6 of this nature granting custody under certain circumstances. 11. The claimant of custody should not be debarred from pressing his or her claim to custody of any property, even in the interim, as there are substantial financial implications involved. These matters often involve appreciation of evidence and the revisional court is not the proper forum to decide such issues. The impugned Order dated 02.01.2025 passed by the learned Special Judge, CBI, Assam, Additional Court No. 1, Guwahati in Case No. RC0202024E0004 is set aside with the direction to adjudicate upon the claim of the petitioner for custody of the concerned vehicles and to decide the matter afresh after granting opportunities of hearing to all the parties. 12. The Criminal petition stands allowed and disposed of accordingly. JUDGE Comparing Assistant