When money seized from accused should be returned to him and not to complainant?

 It seems to us that this order cannot be sustained in view of the clear findings of fact given by the Magistrate to the effect that no offence was committed in respect of the sum of Rs. 463 and that it did not belong to the complainant. It was on the basis of these findings that Pushkar Singh was acquitted and the amount recovered from his house was ordered to be delivered to him. Unless it was found that an offence was committed in respect of this sum, there was no jurisdiction to the High Court to order the payment of this amount to Mst. Kaushillya Bai. We have not been able to appreciate the view of the High Court that though the stolen property consisted of currency notes those notes may have been changed by the accused.

IN THE SUPREME COURT OF INDIA

Criminal Appeal No. 22 of 1951

Decided On: 18.09.1951

Pushkar Singh  Vs. State of Madhya Bharat and Ors.

Hon'ble Judges/Coram:

Saiyid Fazl Ali, M.C. Mahajan and Vivian Bose, JJ.

Citation: AIR 1953 SC 508

Print Page

Whether court should return property to person from whom it was seized without considering title of third party over said property?

We are unable to subscribe to the submission which has
been urged on behalf of the first respondent that when it makes
an order under Section 452, the court is merely required to
determine the source from which the property was seized.
Indeed, if this construction were to be placed, it would mean
that the right of a person who claims title to the property
would be subordinate to the claim of a person from whose
possession the property was seized. A claim of title to the
goods which have been seized is a relevant consideration while
passing an order under Section 452. Where there are conflicting
claims of entitlement to the property, the Magistrate may deal
with them or, where it is found that the rival claims need to
be resolved after an evidentiary trial, relegate the
conflicting claimants to prove their rights and entitlements
before a competent court.
REPORTABLE
IN THE SUPREME COURT OF INDIA
CRIMINAL APPELLATE JURISDICTION
CRIMINAL APPEAL NO. 170 OF 2009

BHARAT SANCHAR NIGAM LIMITED  Vs  SURYANARAYANAN & ANR.

Dated:December 13, 2018
Dr. Dhananjaya Y. Chandrachud, J.

Print Page

Whether court can permit sale of seized gold during pendency of criminal case?

The order of interim custody shall, however, depend on the nature of the property and the circumstances of the case. Where the Magistrate finds that the person who is given custody of the property under this Section is not taking proper care to look after it ,or is misusing it, he may pass fresh order regarding the custody of such property. It is for this reason that the order passed by the Court under Section 451 is not final, it is essentially an interlocutory in nature and hence no revision lies against such order. The Magistrate may order the property which is perishable or subject to natural decay to be disposed of by sale. He may also order any other property to be disposed of by sale if he thinks it expedient to do so in the circumstances of the case.

It must be stated that while passing an order under Section 451, the Court merely decides about the custody or disposal of the property involved in the case, but does not decide the question of title or rights of the parties over the property. The term "production before the Court" with reference to the property used in this section does not necessarily mean actual physical possession or custody by the Court. The Court may have control over the property even without its actual possession or custody.

 It is needless to mention that when the property has any evidentiary value, it is to be kept intact and the condition of non-alienation is imposed to ensure its production during the course of evidence for the purpose of marking as a material object. However, when the property has no evidentiary value, and only the value of the property is to be properly secured for passing of final order under Section 452 of the Code the necessity of keeping such property intact by imposing onerous conditions, prohibiting its alienation or transfer would not be necessary in law. Further, the production of property which has evidentiary value during evidence is a part of fair trial.

Admittedly and undisputedly in the instant case the property i.e. the gold was seized as evidence and thus it can be returned to the owner only after final judgment.

IN THE HIGH COURT OF CALCUTTA

C.R.R. Nos. 696 and 2342 of 2014

Decided On: 03.06.2015

Appellants: Hari Om Export of Mahabirsthan 
Vs.
Respondent: The State of West Bengal

Hon'ble Judges/Coram:Shib Sadhan Sadhu, J.

Citation;2016 CRLJ1014

Print Page

Whether Judicial Magistrate has jurisdiction to release sand seized under sands Act?

 Thus on an analysis of the provisions contained in Section 23A of the Sand Act I find that the right authority to release properties seized under Section 23 of the Sand Act, is infact the Judicial First Class Magistrate having jurisdiction over the area, and not the Sub Divisional Magistrate. It is very clear that the power of Sub Divisional Magistrate is only to decide on confiscation. Once he gets the report of seizure under Sub Section 1, the Sub Divisional Magistrate will have to initiate confiscation proceedings, he will have to give proper notice as required under Sub Section 3, to the person concerned, and under Sub Section 4 he is authorised to take appropriate decision regarding confiscation. 

IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM
PRESENT:
THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE P.UBAID
THURSDAY, THE 12TH DAY OF FEBRUARY 2015
Crl.MC.No. 294 of 2015 ()

KUMKUMA PRIYA R.Y. Vs   STATE OF KERALA

Coram:  MR. JUSTICE P. UBAID

Print Page