Supreme Court: What procedure the court should follow while deciding application for release of vehicle at interim stage in NDPS offence?

Therein the learned judges also contemplated four scenarios in which contraband is seized from a vehicle. The first of which was the owner itself being in possession of the vehicle and the drugs; then, the owner's driver or cleaner, thus his agents being in possession; third, if the vehicle had been stolen and; last, when a third party in the vehicle is found in possession. It was held that in the first two scenarios, the owner of the vehicle and/or his agent would necessarily be arrayed as an Accused and in the third and fourth scenario, the owner of the vehicle and his agent would not be arrayed as an Accused. It was also held that, in the first two scenarios, it may not be proper for the Court to release the vehicle on interim custody, while in the last two scenarios, it could be done. We have to immediately notice that the said declaration applied only to interim custody and not to the final release of the vehicle. {Para 9}

13. It cannot be forgotten that the vehicle kept in the custody of the Police or the Court, during the pendency of the trial, may deteriorate and become unusable in the long run. It is hence the finding of this Court in Biswajit Dey   MANU/SC/0035/2025 : 2025:INSC:32 : (2025) 3 SCC 241 that the provisions of Sections 451 and 457 of the Code of Criminal Procedure (or the analogous provisions of the BNSS) can be invoked even in NDPS cases.

14. However, if none appears to seek custody of the vehicle, then to avoid wastage of a valuable asset, the I.O. may move the Court, if the owner does not approach the Court for interim custody, to refer it for disposal before the DDC. In that circumstance necessarily the Court has to issue notice to the owner of the vehicle and afford an opportunity of hearing before such reference is made. Even if the reference is made after giving an opportunity for hearing, the DDC also has to hear the owner before the asset, in the form of a vehicle, is sold in public auction. On such sale being carried out, the amount received shall be deposited before the Jurisdictional Court, since the procedure delineated for disposal does not include confiscation. Statutorily the power of confiscation is on the Court, trying the offence.

IN THE SUPREME COURT OF INDIA

Criminal Appeal No. 4183 of 2026

Decided On: 24.08.2026

R. Manimaran Vs. State of Tamil Nadu

Hon'ble Judges/Coram:

J.B. Pardiwala and K. Vinod Chandran, JJ.

Citation: 2026 INSC 946,MANU/SC/0983/2026.

Read full judgment here: Click here.

Print Page

Understanding the Distinction Between Seized Property and Bail Security in Criminal Cases: Legal Implications for Interim Custody Applications

 In criminal proceedings, disputes regarding property custody often arise, leading to applications for interim custody under the criminal procedure laws, primarily Sections 451 and 457 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 (Cr.P.C.). A crucial factor that influences the outcome of such applications is whether the property in question is seized property or property deposited as bail security. This article explores the key distinctions between these two categories of property and their respective treatment under the law.

Print Page

Whether Special court NDPS, can release vehicle seized in an offence under NDPS Act on Supratnama?

 Even otherwise in the absence of any provision, which bars from release of any vehicle seized, there appears no reason to keep the vehicle in Police custody until the conclusion of the trial. There are various issues related with the upkeep of such articles specially a vehicle. This Court is of the view that the provision of Section 60 of the Act at all does not debar from releasing a vehicle during pendency of the trial. The provision of Section 60 of the Act and Section 451 of the Code act in different spheres. It is the matter of interim custody only. If vehicle is given to it's owner with certain conditions namely producing it whenever called to do so; not changing it's shape without prior permission of the Court; not to transfer it's ownership without prior permission of the Court, etc; the production of the vehicle may be ensured at any later stage of the trial or at the time of confiscation proceeding. {Para 13}

 In the High Court of Uttarakhand at Nainital

(Before Ravindra Maithani, J.)

Abhijeet Kumar Vs State of Uttarakhand.

Criminal Misc. Application No. 368 of 2019

Decided on April 10, 2019,

Citation: 2019 SCC OnLine Utt 265.

Print Page

Under which circumstances Magistrate who has no jurisdiction to try the case can release seized property U/S 457 of CRPC?

  On a reading of Section 457 Cr.P.C, we find that the said provision coverers a wide spectrum and would apply to all kinds of seizures under the Cr.P.C. On a reading of the words “and such property is not produced before a Criminal Court during an inquiry or trial” appearing in Section 457 Cr.P.C, the same does not necessarily mean that the report of the seizure of property to a Magistrate would be given to the same Magistrate who would hold an inquiry of the case under Section 2(g) of the Code and the trial of the case. The report of the seizure of property could be to a different Magistrate than the one who would conduct the inquiry or trial. The report of the seizure of property under Section 457 Cr.P.C which has not been produced at the stage of investigation, could be to a Magistrate who may not have the jurisdiction to hold the inquiry or trial on the submission of the charge-sheet in the said case. As such, we are of the view that the power conferred under Section 457 Cr.P.C cannot be given a restrictive meaning, as the power under the said provision can be exercised by a Magistrate who has no power to hold an inquiry or trial of the case, in which the seized property is involved in. {Para 43}

THE GAUHATI HIGH COURT

(HIGH COURT OF ASSAM, NAGALAND, MIZORAM AND ARUNACHAL PRADESH)

Crl.Pet 284/2022

The State of Assam and Another.  Vs Ram Sankar Maurya. 

BEFORE

HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE MICHAEL ZOTHANKHUMA

HON’BLE MRS. JUSTICE MALASRI NANDI

Author: (M. Zothankhuma, J)

Date of judgment : 02.03.2023.

Read full Judgment here: Click here

Print Page

Can the court release seized property at the investigation stage U/S 457 of CRPC even if not produced before the court?

 The fact that the Hon’ble Supreme Court has given a direction to the learned Criminal Court to consider release of seized property/articles at the investigation stage under Section 457 Cr.P.C, shows that Section 457 Cr.P.C. can be applied by the Criminal Court at the investigation stage for release of seized

property.The submission made by the counsel for the appellant that the judgment of the Apex Court in Ram Prakash Sharma (supra) did not deliberate on the scope of Section 457 Cr.P.C, for granting custody of seized property at the stage of investigation cannot be accepted by us. While different situations and circumstances could arise in respect of seized property, one situation that can arise is when the police submit a final negative report and the police authorities fail to release custody of the seized property in terms of

Section 102 Cr.P.C. In that case, there would be no remedy for the aggrieved person, except to approach the High Court under Section 482 Cr.P.C or Article 226 of the Constitution, which would be a difficult task for people living in far flung areas and those belonging to the weaker sections of society. In that event,

Section 457 Cr.P.C would become redundant. After considering the decisions of the Apex Court and the various High Courts alongwith Section 457 Cr.P.C, we are of the considered opinion that the words “and such property is not produced before a Criminal Court during an inquiry or trial”, appearing in sub-Section (1) of Section 457 Cr.P.C, cannot be restricted to mean that the stage of inquiry or trial is a condition precedent, for a Court to have jurisdiction for exercising power under Section 457 Cr.P.C. at the investigation stage. We are of the view that the words “and such property is not produced before a Criminal Court during the inquiry or trial” appearing in Section 457(1) Cr.P.C would have to be considered to be a reference to a stage of investigation and not the stage of inquiry or trial. Further, we are bound by the decision of the Apex Court in Ram Prakash Sharma (supra) , in terms of Article 141 of the Constitution of India, as it is the mandate of the Constitution that the law declared by the Supreme Court shall be binding on all Courts within the territory of India. Also, in the case of Anil Kumar Neotia vs. Union of India & Others, reported in AIR 1988

SC 1353, it has been held that the High Court cannot question the correctness of the decision of the Supreme Court, even though the points stated before the High Court were not considered by the Supreme Court. {Para 44}

45. In view of the reasons stated above, we answer the reference by holding that at the investigation stage, seized articles cannot be released by a Court under Section 451 Cr.P.C. However, under Section 457 Cr.P.C., the Criminal Court has the jurisdiction to give custody of seized property/articles at the stage of investigation, when those seized property are not produced before the Court.

THE GAUHATI HIGH COURT

(HIGH COURT OF ASSAM, NAGALAND, MIZORAM AND ARUNACHAL PRADESH)

Crl.Pet 284/2022

The State of Assam and Another.  Vs Ram Sankar Maurya. 

BEFORE

HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE MICHAEL ZOTHANKHUMA

HON’BLE MRS. JUSTICE MALASRI NANDI

Author: (M. Zothankhuma, J)

Date of judgment : 02.03.2023

Print Page

Whether the court can permit test identification parade of seized property after it was released on Supratnama?

 It has been submitted that briefly the allegations are that the Contractor/consigners-Jai Mata Di Logistics Pvt. Ltd. was carrying the gold, diamond and silver articles and a robbery was conducted. During the course of the investigations, recovery was effected. Pursuant to the recovery been effected an application was moved by Sh. Sunil Kumar, Proprietor of Jai Mata Di Logistics Pvt. Ltd for release of the articles. The State gave its no objections on the basis of which learned ACMM-01 vide order dated 13th September, 2022 ordered for release of the articles subject to certain conditions as contained in order dated 13th September, 2022. {Para 3}

4. On 30th September, 2022, the State moved an application for conducting TIP of the case property. This application was rejected by the learned MM inter alia on the ground that once the articles have been ordered to be released to the person who was in lawful custody of the articles, there is no reason whatsoever for identification of the articles.

11. The judicial TIPs are conducted under Section 9 of the Indian Evidence Act, 1872. It is a settled proposition that the TIP is not a substantive piece of evidence and it is only a relevant fact which is taken into the account during the appreciation of the evidence.

12. This Court is of the considered opinion that investigating agency, unless found to have committed some illegality should be given a free hand for the purpose of conducting the investigation. Investigating officers or their supervisory officers are expected to take the best decision for the purpose of ensuring that the guilty persons are brought to the book and justice is dispensed to the complainant.

13. Perusal of the order of the learned MM dated 30th September, 2022 indicates that even learned MM was of the view that the application for TIP should have been moved earlier. This might have been a slip on the part of the IO but for this the right of the investigating officer to get the TIP conducted cannot be taken away.

14. Thus, I consider that the order of the learned MM and learned ASJ denying the right to conduct the TIP is not in accordance with law. Hence, the order dated 30th September, 2022, 21st November, 2022 and 26th November, 2022 are bound to be set aside, however the order dated 13th September, 2022 is to be given effect immediately without any further delay.

 IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI

Crl. M.C. No. 6494/2022 and CM Appl. 25282/2022

Decided On: 02.12.2022

State (NCT of Delhi)  Vs.  Sunil Kumar

Hon'ble Judges/Coram:

Dinesh Kumar Sharma, J.

Citation: MANU/DE/4940/2022

Print Page

Can the court direct the accused to pay money to maintain the seized cattle and keep the Truck as security?

 Considering the above rival contention and

perusal of the impugned order of the learned JMFC and

Judgment of the learned Sessions Court, it is apparent

that the question whether the animals which admittedly

were purchased for the purpose of trade by the

petitioner, were to be used for the purpose of sale,

slaughter or otherwise is a question which will have to

be determined by the learned JMFC during the trial of

the proceeding. It is admitted position that that animals

have been given in the custody of the respondent No. 2

and the respondent No. 2 is taking care of them. The

petitioner has not complied the direction of the learned

JFMC, by which the cost of maintenance of the animals

have been directed to be deposited. Rather on the

contrary, a plea is now sought to be raised for reduction

of the amount of maintenance from Rs. 200/- per day to

Rss 20/- per day which is contradictory to what has

been fixed as the minimum cost of maintenance as per

the Notification dated 27.02.2019 issued by the

Maharashtra Animal Welfare Board. Under Rule 5(4) of

Rules 2017, which are presently in force, in view of the

clarification of the Hon’ble Apex Court date 11.08.2017

in WP (C) No. 422, 419, 499, 497 of 2017, the vehicle

has to stand as security for the purpose of cost of

maintenance which admittedly has not been paid or

deposited by the petitioner. {Para 6}

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY,

NAGPUR BENCH : NAGPUR.

CRIMINAL WRIT PETITION NO. 886/2021

Mohammad Rajik S/o Mohammad Akil Vs. State of Maharashtra & anr.

CORAM :- AVINASH G. GHAROTE, J.

DATED :- 10.03.2022

Print Page

Precaution to be taken by court before releasing Mobile or Laptop on Supratnama

 The aforesaid fiasco had come into being due to the ineptness of the investigating agency as well as the presiding officer in the court in failing to ascertain the IMEI number of the mobile phone before handing over custody of the said article which is alleged to be stolen property to the defacto complainant. Their conduct exposes serious deficiency in knowledge and experience in handling cases involving electronic gadgets. It must be borne in mind when electronic gadgets like mobile phone, tablet, laptop, etc. are subject-matters of theft and are required to be produced during trial as material exhibits of the case, necessary precautions must be taken to ascertain the IMEI number or other unique identification numbers of such equipments including its brand/product name, manufacturing date and other particulars prior to handing over interim custody of such electronic devices to a third party pending enquiry or trial. Handing over a mobile phone or any other electronic devices to a third party by way of interim custody pending investigation, enquiry or trial without ascertaining its IMEI or any other unique identification number is virtually equivalent to handing over interim custody of a motor vehicle to a third party without ascertaining its registration mark and other particulars. Courts dealing with such cases, therefore, must be most careful at the time of handing over interim custody of electronic devices and must bear in mind the following facts while dealing with applications for return of such articles:—

In the event electronic devices like mobile phone, laptop, tablet, etc. are seized as stolen property and are required to be produced and identified during trial, any prayer for return interim custody of such devices pending investigation, enquiry or trial shall not be granted till the IMEI number or other unique identification number, as applicable to the concerned device including its brand/product number and manufacturing details are ascertained and noted in the case records for identification of such device during trial. Till such ascertainment is made the concerned devices shall be retained in safe custody of the Court in accordance with law. {Para 9}

In the High Court of Calcutta

(Before Joymalya Bagchi, J.)

Om Prakash Verma  v. State of West Bengal 

C.R.R. No. 1076 of 2017

With

CRAN No. 3600 of 2017

Decided on September 1, 2017

Citation: 

2017 SCC OnLine Cal 13205 : 2018 Cri LJ 640 : (2018) 1 CHN 100 : (2017) 3 E Cr N 775 : (2017) 4 E Cr N 924 : (2018) 2 Cal LJ 189

Print Page

What conditions magistrate can impose for the release of a vehicle on supratnama seized for carrying sand?

The learned counsel for the petitioner also relied on the

ratio laid down by the Division Bench of this Court in Writ Petition

No. 7873 of 2019 dated 01st July, 2019, it is held that

“4. Considering that vehicles would be lying idle and it

will not be in anybodies interest to keep the vehicles

idle, we would allow the release of the vehicles on

following conditions :

(i) The petitioners in each of these petitions

shall deposit an amount of Rs. 1,00,000/- for

release of vehicles.

5. Upon deposit of this amount, the Authority shall

release the vehicles after identifying its legitimate owner,

after verifying the documents and on petitioners’

submitting the bond, so also after complying with all

terms and conditions put forth by the J.M.F.C. while

directing release of vehicles.

6. The deposit of Rs. 1,00,000/- each with Revenue

Authority by petitioners would be without prejudice to

the rights and contentions of either parties.”

10. In view of the above observations of the Division Bench of

this Court the condition of payment of fine amount cannot be faulted

or cannot be held as illegal, but at the same time the condition of

indemnity bond appears to be stringent, which is required to be set

aside. With this, I proceed to pass following order :

ORDER

1. The petition is partly allowed.

2. The Vehicle bearing No. MH-16-CC-9397 be

returned to its owner on a bond of Rs. 15,00,000/- (Rs.

Fifteen Lakhs).

3. The petitioner is directed to deposit Rs.

1,50,000/- (Rs. One Lakh and Fifty Thousand) towards

fine amount without prejudice to the rights and

contentions of either parties before the Revenue

Authority.

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE OF BOMBAY

BENCH AT AURANGABAD

CRIMINAL WRIT PETITION NO.947 OF 2021

Vikas Uttam Shinde, Vs State of Maharashtra 

CORAM : SURENDRA P.TAVADE , J.

DATE : 2nd September, 2021.

Print Page

Whether Judicial Magistrate can release oxygen concentrator on Supratnama?

At the threshold, a query was put to Ld. Addl. PP, as regards the notification, vide which the seized articles viz. Oxygen Concentrators were notified to be an Essential Commodity. On instructions from the IO, Ld. Addl. PP submitted that no such notification was available, as yet. Ld Addl. PP, however brought to the notice of this court OM dtd. 29.06.2020 issued by GOI seeking

to monitor the Maximum Retail Price of Medical Devices, including Oxygen Concentrators. This OM, does not, in any case, declare Oxygen Concentrators to be Essential Commodity. In the aforesaid facts & circumstances, when no notification declaring the Oxygen Concentrators to be essential commodity has been placed on record by the IO; evidently the provisions of Sec.-3/7 of the Essential Commodities Act are not attracted. IO was probably clear of this position, that is why the application for release of the case property was moved by him before the Ld. MM and not before the District Magistrate, as is the mandate of Sec.-6E of the Essential Commodities Act.

6 Thus, the seized articles having not been notified to be essential commodity, reference to the provisions of Essential Commodities Act or the procedure prescribed therein for release of the case property, is misplaced. The trial court has, thus, not erred in exercise of the jurisdiction, so invoked by the IO. Order passed by Ld. MM on this score can not be said to be illegal.

IN THE COURT OF SH. NAROTTAM KAUSHAL,

PRINCIPAL DISTRICT & SESSIONS JUDGE (S.W.),

DWARKA COURTS, NEW DELHI

CR No.-CR/76/2021 

STATE (GOVT. OF NCT OF DELHI) Vs VINAY AGARWAL

DATE OF ORDER : 08.05.2021

Print Page

Whether Magistrate can release the house sealed by Food Safety officer under Food Safety and Standards Act?

In the similar situation, the Hon'ble apex court in the case of Nevada Properties Private Limited Vs. State of Maharashtra, AIR 2019 SC 4554, in para Nos. 20 and 21 held as under:-

" 20. Section 102 postulates seizure of the property. Immovable property cannot, in its strict sense, be seized, though documents of title, etc., relating to immovable property can be seized, taken into custody and produced. Immovable property can be attached and also locked/sealed. It could be argued that the word seize would include such action of attachmetn and sealing. Seizure of immovable property in this sense and manner would in law require dispossession of the person in occupation/possession of the immovable property, unless there are no claimants, which would be rare. Language of Section 102 of the Code does not support the interpretation that the police officer has the power to dispossesses a person in occupation and take possession of an immovable proerty in order to seize it. In absence of the Legislature conferring this express or implied power under Section 102 of the Code to the police officer, we would hesitate and not hodl that this power should be inferred and is implicit in the power to the effect seizure..................................

21. In view of the aforesaid discussion, the Reference is answered by holding that the power of a police officer under Sectuion 102 of the code to seize any property, which may be found under circumtances that create suspicion of the commission of any offence, would not include the power to attach, seize and seal an immovable property."

9. In the context of the law laiddown by the Hon'ble apex Court in the case of Nevada Properties Private Limited (supra), this Court is of the view that power of seizure and forefeiture of immovable property has given to the courts and not to the prosecution authority and if the police officer or other officer has given power to seized the immovable property, it may be chaotic the circumstances.

10. Looking to the aforesaid facts and circumstances of the case, in the considered opinion of this Court, the trial court as well as revisional court have committed error in rejecting the application filed by the applicant under Section 451 of the Cr.P.C., seeking the direction to the respondents to unlock and open the seized business premises of the applicant without considering the fact that the Food Safety Officer after seizure of food articles from the business premises of the applicant, has already send the one samples of said food articles to State Food Laboratory, Bhopal and remaining food articles were destroyed by him, therefore, no purpose will be served in locking the said business premises of the applicant.

 Madhya Pradesh High Court

Laduram vs The State Of Madhya Pradesh on 16 January, 2020

Author: Sunil Kumar Awasthi

       M.Cr.C.No.51929/2019
                

Print Page

Whether court should release money seized in an offence of gambling on Supratnama?

If one can have a casual look at this section of law, with the explanation provided therefore, Explanation (b) provided to the main section clearly applied to the facts of the present case and that, therefore, the cash of Rs. 1,31,571/- is clearly deemed to be the "property" involved in this case and since it was to be under the judicial custody, section 451 of the Code clearly attracted. If it is so, one has to render the workings adumberated in the main section viz. an obligation in-built in the said section empowering the Court to make such order as it thinks fit which would clearly mean depending upon the circumstances and facts of each case. Therefore, it cannot be made as a general universal rule that any property which is produced before the trial Court involved in such case can automatically be ordered to be returned under the section. The power given to this Court is limited to the extent that while passing such order under this section, the Court must give proper and adequate reason for returning such property by way of interim custody.

12. The legislature cannot be said to have intended the disposal of currency notes in such a way that it would hamper impartial and fair trial. Since the charge-sheet has been filed and the trial is to be commence shortly and the accused are ready to face the trial, it will not be proper or conducive for the Court to direct custody of seized property i.e. currency notes to be returned to the applicant on execution of supratnama simply because currency notes were seized which have nexus with the offence of gambling, would fetch interest is no ground for releasing the property in favour of the applicant because it would hamper impartial and fair trial.

 IN THE HIGH COURT OF BOMBAY

Criminal Application No. 242 of 2003

Decided On: 21.03.2003

Chandu Chaitram Aswani Vs.  State of Maharashtra

Hon'ble Judges/Coram:

S.T. Kharche, J.

Citation: MANU/MH/1743/2003,2003 ALL MR (Cri)1335

Print Page

Whether the court can release Gun Seized during the investigation on Supratnama during the pendency of proceeding?

Admittedly, the case has been registered for the offences under Sections 147, 148, 294(b), 307 IPC r/w Section 25 of Arms Act, after investigation, it was altered into one under Sections 147, 148, 294(b), 307 and 149 IPC, since during investigation, it revealed that the petitioner is having licence for possessing the gun. Since the petitioner is a Security Guard, he is needed for gun for his day-to-day avocation.

9. At this juncture, it is appropriate to incorporate paragraph No. 7 of the judgment in MANU/SC/1110/2002 : CDJ 2003 SC 061 [Sunderbhai Ambalal Desai v. State of Gujarat], which reads thus:

"7. In our view, the powers under Section 451 Cr.P.C., should be exercised expeditiously and judiciously. It would serve various purposes, namely:-

1. Owner of the article would not suffer because of its remaining unused or by its misappropriation;

2. Court or the police would not be required to keep the article in safe custody.

3. If the proper panchnama before handing over possession of article is prepared, that can be used in evidence instead of its production before the Court during the trial. If necessary, evidence could also be recorded describing the nature of the property in detail; and

4. This jurisdiction of the Court to record evidence should be exercised promptly so that there may not be further change of tampering with the articles."

10. Applying the said ratio to the case on hand, if this Court analyses the facts of the present case, it is clear that since the petitioner is having gun licence and he is a Security Guard by profession, he is entitled for interim custody of the gun.

IN THE HIGH COURT OF MADRAS (MADURAI BENCH)

Crl. O.P. (MD.) No. 17004 of 2015

Decided On: 03.09.2015

 Devendharan  Vs. State

Hon'ble Judges/Coram:

R. Mala, J.

Citation: MANU/TN/2867/2015

Print Page

Whether magistrate can release the vehicle seized in offence under POCSO Act?

Offence under Pocso Act is triable by session court. As per S 25 of Pocso Act,Magistrate is given only jurisdiction to record statement of victim.As per S 33 of Pocso Act, Session judge can directly take cognizance of offence without accused is committed to him.Session Judge can conduct trial as per provisions of CRPC. Hence I consider that magistrate can not release vehicle seized in Pocso Act.

Print Page

Leading Supreme Court on release of seized property on Supratnama

To avoid a situation, in our view, powers under Section 451 Cr.P.C. should be exercised promptly and at the earliest.

Valuable Articles and Currency Notes

11. With regard to valuable articles, such as, golden or silver ornaments or articles studded with precious stones, it is submitted that it is of no use to keep such articles in police custody for years till the trial is over. In our view, this submission requires to be accepted. In such cases, Magistrate should pass appropriate orders as contemplated under Section 451 Cr.P.C. at the earliest.

12. For this purpose, if material on record indicates that such articles belong to the complainant at whose house theft, robbery or dacoity has taken place, then seized articles be handed over to the complainant after:--

(1) preparing detailed proper panchnama of such articles;

(2) taking photographs of such articles and a bond that such articles would be produced if required at the time of trial; and

(3) after taking proper security.

13. For this purpose, the Court may follow the procedure of recording such evidence, as it thinks necessary, as provided under Section 451 Cr.P.C. The bond and security should be taken so as to prevent the evidence being lost, altered or destroyed. The Court should see that photographs of such articles are attested or countersigned by the complainant, accused as well as by the person to whom the custody is handed over. Still however, it would be the function of the Court under Section 451 Cr.P.C. to impose any other appropriate condition.

14. In case, where such articles are not handed over either to the complainant or to the person from whom such articles are seized or to its claimant, then the Court may direct that such articles be kept in bank lockers. Similarly, if articles are required to kept in police custody, it would be open to the SHO after preparing proper panchnama to keep such articles in a bank locker. In any case, such articles should be produced before the Magistrate within a week of their seizure. If required, the Court may direct that such articles be handed over back to the Investigating Officer for further investigation and identification. However, in no set of circumstances, the Investigating Officer should keep such articles in custody for a longer period for the purpose of investigation and identification. For currency notes, similar procedure can be followed.

Vehicles

15. Learned senior counsel Mr. Dholakia, appearing for the State of Gujarat further submitted that at present in the police station premises, number of vehicles are kept unattended and vehicles become junk day by day. It is his contention that appropriate directions should be given to the Magistrate who are dealing with such questions to hand over such vehicles to its owner or to the person from whom the said vehicles are seized by taking appropriate bond and the guarantee for the return of the said vehicles if required by the Court at any point of time.

16. However, the learned counsel appearing for the petitioners submitted that this question of handing over vehicles to the person from whom it is seized or to its true owner is always a matter of litigation and a lot of arguments are advanced by the concerned persons.

17. In our view, whatever be the situation, it is of no use to keep such seized vehicles at the police stations for a long period. It is for the Magistrate to pass appropriate orders immediately by taking appropriate bond and guarantee as well as security for return of the said vehicles, if required at any point of time. This can be done pending hearing of applications for return of such vehicles.

18. In case where the vehicle is not claimed by the accused, owner, or the insurance company or by third person, then such vehicle may be ordered to be auctioned by the Court. If the said vehicle is insured with the insurance company then insurance company be informed by the Court to take possession of the vehicle which is not claimed by the owner or a third person. If Insurance company fails to take possession the vehicles may be sold as per the direction of the Court. The Court would pass such order within a period of six months from the date of production of the said vehicle before the Court. In any case, before handing over possession of such vehicles, appropriate photographs of the said vehicle should be taken and detailed panchnama should be prepared.

19. For articles such as seized liquor also, prompt action should be taken in disposing it of after preparing necessary panchnama. If sample is required to be taken, sample may kept properly after sending it to the chemical analyser, if required. But in no case, large quantity of liquor should be stored at the police station. No purpose is served by such storing.

20. Similarly for the Narcotic drugs also, for its identification, procedure under Section 451 Cr.P.C. should be followed of recording evidence and disposal. It identity could be no the basis of evidence recorded by the Magistrate. Samples also should be sent immediately to the Chemical Analyser so that subsequently, a contention may not be raised that the article which was seized was not the same.

IN THE SUPREME COURT OF INDIA

Special Leave Petition (crl.) 2745 of 2002

Decided On: 01.10.2002

 Sunderbhai Ambalal Desai  Vs. State of Gujarat

Hon'ble Judges/Coram:

M.B. Shah and D.M. Dharmadhikari, JJ.

Citation: AIR 2003 SC 638,(2002) 10 SCC 283,

Print Page

Whether vehicle seized under NDPS Act can be released on Supratnama?

Even otherwise in the absence of any provision, which bars from release of any vehicle seized, there appears no reason to keep the vehicle in Police custody until the conclusion of the trial. There are various issues related with the upkeep of such articles specially a vehicle. This Court is of the view that the provision of Section 60 of the Act at all does not debar from releasing a vehicle during pendency of the trial. The provision of Section 60 of the Act and Section 451 of the Code act in different spheres. It is the matter of interim custody only. If vehicle is given to it's owner with certain conditions namely producing it whenever called to do so; not changing it's shape without prior permission of the Court; not to transfer it's ownership without prior permission of the Court, etc; the production of the vehicle may be ensured at any later stage of the trial or at the time of confiscation proceeding.

In the High Court of Uttarakhand at Nainital

(Before Ravindra Maithani, J.)

Abhijeet Kumar  v. State of Uttarakhand 

Criminal Misc. Application No. 368 of 2019

Decided on April 10, 2019,

Citation: 2019 SCC OnLine Utt 265

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

When bullocks can be released on supratnama?

 With the assistance of the learned advocates for the respective parties I have examined the documents placed on the record of the application. The charge-sheet is filed against Shaikh Jabbar Shaikh Khairu, Shaikh Budan Shaikh Ahmad, Shaikh Kahar Shaikh Khairu, Shaikh Rajjak Shaikh Kalu and Shaikh Sharif Shaikh Rafiq. The applicant is not shown as accused. The learned A.P.P. has not been able to show anything from the charge-sheet on the basis of which it can be said that the claim of the applicant for grant of interim custody of 7 bullocks cannot be considered. The learned advocate for the applicant has submitted that the applicant has produced on the record of the trial Court the receipts issued by the Market Contractor of Grampanchayat, Hiwarkhed and by the Agricultural Produce Market Committee to substantiate the claim of the applicant that he has purchased the 7 bullocks. Surprisingly, the learned Magistrate as also the learned Sessions Judge have not dealt with the documentary evidence. Though the non-applicant No. 1 refuted the claim of the applicant regarding ownership in respect of 7 bullocks by alleging that the receipts are bogus and fabricated, the learned A.P.P. has not been able to point out that such charge is levelled against the applicant. As stated above, the applicant is not even shown as accused.

8. In the above facts, I find that the order passed by the learned Magistrate rejecting the application filed by the applicant for interim custody of the bullocks and the order passed by the learned Additional Sessions Judge, are unsustainable. Consequently, the impugned orders are required to be set aside and the application filed by the applicant has to be allowed.

IN THE HIGH COURT OF BOMBAY (NAGPUR BENCH)

Criminal Application (Apl) No. 188 of 2014

Decided On: 30.03.2016

Shaikh Yusuf  Vs.  The State of Maharashtra

Coram:Z.A. Haq, J.

Citation:2016 ALLMR(CRI)4755

Print Page

Whether magistrate can release vehicle seized under essential commodities Act on supratnama?

It will be apposite to refer to the Judgment of the Apex

  Court in State of West Bengal & Others v. Sujit

  Kumar Rana 2004 KHC 942, at this juncture. In the

  said case in para materia provisions in the Forest Act,

  1927 were considered by the Apex Court and in paragraph

  31 of the said judgment it was held as follows:


          "31. The said authority before passing a final order

          in terms of S.59-A (3) of the Act is required to issue

          notice and give opportunity of hearing to the parties

          concerned.     Unless such a notice is issued, the

          confiscation proceedings cannot be said to have

          started. Once, however, a confiscation proceeding

          is initiated; in terms of S.59-G of the Act, the

          jurisdiction of the criminal court in this behalf stands

          excluded. The criminal court although indisputably

          has the jurisdiction to deal with the property which

          is the subject matter of offence in terms of the

          provisions of the Code of Criminal Procedure but

          once a confiscation proceedings is initiated, the said

          power cannot be exercised by the Magistrate.

          ( emphasis supplied)

  
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM

                                                    PRESENT:

                MR. JUSTICE RAJA VIJAYARAGHAVAN V

                FRIDAY, THE 15TH DAYOF JULY 2016

                                          Crl.MC.No. 3415 of 2016
                                       

                     BIJU SEBASTIAN,   Vs   STATE OF KERALA,
                    

Print Page

When vehicle seized in forest offence should not be released on supratnama?

 In that view of the matter, merely because the petitioner had made certain representations to the respondent-authorities for release of his vehicle whereby he has accepted his guilt and just because the petitioner has further clarified that the alleged commission of offence in question by his driver was because of the bona fide act of his driver, does not confer any right in him much less under the provisions of Indian Forest Act to claim release of vehicle immediately unless the inquiry as was proposed and conducted in the matter is completed. We are fortified in our view in light of the law laid down by the Hon'ble Apex Court in the case of State of Karnataka v. K. Krishnan, reported in MANU/SC/0512/2000 : AIR 2000 SC 2729. The Hon'ble Apex Court while dealing with the similar case, in paragraphs '7' and '8' observed thus:

7. Learned counsel appearing for the appellant-State has submitted and we agree that the provisions of the Act are required to be strictly complied with and followed for the purposes of achieving the object for which the Act was enacted. Liberal approach in the matter with respect to the property seized, which is liable to confiscation, is uncalled for as the same is likely to frustrate the provisions of the Act. Before passing an order for releasing the forest produce or the property used in the commission of the forest offence, the Authorised Officer or the Appellate Authority has to specify the reasons which justify such release, apparently, prima facie excluding the possibility of such forest produce or the property being confiscated ultimately. Generally, therefore, any forest produce and the tools, boats, vehicles, catties, etc., used in the commission of the forest offence, which are liable to forfeiture, should not be released. This, however, does not debar the officers and the authorities under the Act including the Appellate Authority to pass appropriate orders under the circumstances of each case but only after assigning valid reasons. The liberal approach in the matter would perpetuate the commission of more offences with respect to the forest and its produce which, if not protected, is surely to affect the mother-earth and the atmosphere surrounding it. The courts cannot shut their eyes and ignore their obligations indicated in the Act enacted for the purposes of protecting and safeguarding both the forests and then-produce. The forests are not only the natural wealth of the country but also protector of human life by providing a clean and unpolluted atmosphere. We are of the considered view that when any vehicle is seized on the allegation that it was used for committing a forest offence, the same shall not normally be returned to a party till the culmination of all the proceedings in respect of such offence, including confiscatory proceedings, if any. Nonetheless, if for any exceptional reasons a Court is inclined to release the vehicle during such pendency, furnishing a bank guarantee should be the minimum condition. No party shall be under the impression that release of vehicle would be possible on easier terms, when such vehicle is alleged to have been involved in commission of a forest offence. Any such easy release would tempt the forest offenders to repeat commission of such offences. Its casualty will be the forests as the same cannot be replenished for years to come.

Citation: 2014(4)FLT821, 2014(5)MhLj286,2016 CRLJ(NOC)76 BOM

IN THE HIGH COURT OF BOMBAY (AURANGABAD BENCH)

W.P. No. 3805 of 2002

Decided On: 02.04.2014

 Sanjay Namdeorao  Suryawanshi   Vs.  State of Maharashtra

Hon'ble Judges/Coram:S.V. Gangapurwala and N.W. Sambre, JJ.

Print Page