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

When property seized from accused be returned to him after his acquittal?

The words "may make such order as it thinks fit" in the Section, vest the Court with a discretion to dispose of the property in any of the three modes specified in the Section. But the exercise of such discretion is inherently a judicial function. The choice of the mode or manner of disposal is not to be made arbitrarily, but judicially in accordance with sound principles founded on reason and justice, keeping in view the class and nature of the property and the material before it. One of such well-recognised principles is that when after an inquiry or trial the accused is discharged or acquitted, the Court should normally restore the property of class (a) or (b) to the person from whose custody it was taken. Departure from this salutary rule of practice is not to be lightly made, when there is no dispute or doubt as in the instant case that the property in question was seized from the custody of such accused and belonged to him.

IN THE SUPREME COURT OF INDIA

Criminal Appeal No. 155 of 1973

Decided On: 07.08.1979

N. Madhavan  Vs. State of Kerala

Hon'ble Judges/Coram:

O. Chinnappa Reddy, P.N. Singhal and R.S. Sarkaria, JJ.

Citation: (1979) 4 SCC 1

Print Page

Procedure to be followed by magistrate for releasing cattle on supratnama who are taken for slaughtering

 In Krushi Goseva Sangh's case (supra), this Court has observed that section 6 of the Maharashtra Animal Preservation Act imposes restrictions on slaughter of scheduled animals and offence punishable under the Act is declared as cognizable by section 10. It is further held that the animal which is the subject of crime can safely be held to be the "property" regarding which offence is committed and recourse can be taken to section 451 of the Criminal Procedure Code for seeking a direction from the Competent Court of law for the custody and disposal of the property pending trial. The order should be for preservation and protection of cows and scheduled animals and not for their slaughter or destruction. This Court further observed thus:
It is now well settled that what is directly forbidden cannot be indirectly permitted. The observations and guidelines of High Court in W.P. No. 714 of 1986 decided on 12.8.1996, Ejaz Ahmed vs. State of Maharashtra should be kept in view while passing an order under section 451. If Organizations like Goseva Sangh or the Panjarapole come forward for taking responsibility of preservation and protection of cattle, then they should be preferred but before handing over the custody to any person or institution, the Court should ascertain whether they would be able to make adequate arrangements for maintenance, preservation and protection of cattle....
Equivalent Citation: 2012BomCR(Cri)469
IN THE HIGH COURT OF BOMBAY (NAGPUR BENCH)
Criminal Application No. 121 of 2011
Decided On: 27.07.2011

 Go-Vigyan Anusandhan Kendra  Vs.  State of Maharashtra & Anr.

Hon'ble Judges/Coram:
A.P. Bhangale, J.

Print Page

Whether it is necessary for magistrate to hold enquiry for disposal of golden ornaments?

It  appears  that  the  accused  persons had not  claimed  the 
property as belonging to them.   The wife of the petitioner, to whom the 
ornaments in question were belonging, was not examined as a witness 
during  the  trial.     The identity of  the property, as  the same  that was 
robbed, was not established during the  trial and as such  the order of 
acquittal was proper and legal.   However, the respondent Nos. 2 and 3 
were also not examined as witnesses during the trial.   Their stand, viz. 
as   to   whether   the   property   produced   before   the   Court   had   been 
recovered   from   them   and   further   whether   that   property   had   been 
purchased by any of them from accused No. 1 or any other accused, was 
also not ascertained during the trial.   In such a case, instead of passing 
an  order  of  return  of  property  to  the  respondent  Nos.  2  and  3,  the 
learned Magistrate ought to have held an inquiry for the limited purpose 
of  the disposal of property.     The persons  to whom  the property was 
directed to be returned, viz. the respondent Nos. 2 and 3, had not at all 
appeared before the Court and had not made any claim that the gold 

that was produced as stolen property, was actually belonging to them or 
that it had been recovered by the investigating agency from them.   In 
the   context   of   the   claim   of   the   petitioner,  it   was  also  necessary  to 
ascertain as to from whom the respondent Nos. 2 and 3 had obtained 
the   property   and   whether   it   had   been   obtained   by   them   from   the 
accused No. 1 or anybody else and under what circumstances.   It was 
also necessary to ascertain as to the circumstances in which the property 
came to the investigating agency and under what circumstances,if at all, 
it was parted with by the respondent Nos. 2 and 3 without any protest.  
8. Thus, this was a fit case where the learned Magistrate ought 
to have held an inquiry for the disposal of the property. 
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY
              BENCH AT AURANGABAD
  CRIMINAL WRIT PETITION NO. 998 OF 2010
Anandi Roy S/o Dilipkumar Roy

V
 The  State of  Maharashtra
  
 CORAM :  ABHAY M. THIPSAY, J. 
DATE  OF JUDGMENT :  28/08/2013
Citation; 2013 ALL M R(cri)3898

Print Page