Summary
The Supreme Court rejected automatic return of seized alloy moulds to the person from whose premises they were recovered after the criminal case ended in acquittal. His title was seriously disputed and required civil adjudication. Custody was to remain with BSNL, which was permitted to auction the goods after preserving a sample and accounting for the proceeds, subject to the competent civil court’s directions.
Issues
- Whether acquittal required return of seized property to the person from whose possession it was taken despite a competing claim of title.
- How the longstanding custody of the goods should be dealt with pending civil adjudication.
Provisions considered
- Section 451, Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973The goods had been entrusted to the appellant in interim custody during the criminal proceedings. (¶¶ 3, 13, 14)
- Section 452(1) and (2), Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973Disposal after trial required judicial consideration of entitlement to possession; seizure from a person did not override a genuine competing title claim. (¶¶ 15, 16, 17, 19, 20)
Held
- The power to dispose of property at the conclusion of trial is judicial. Claimed entitlement and title are relevant; conflicting claims may be dealt with by the Magistrate or referred for proof before the competent court where an evidentiary trial is needed. (¶¶ 16, 17)
- Ordinary restoration after acquittal to the person from whom property was seized applies where ownership is not in dispute. It does not mandate return in disregard of a genuine third-party title claim. (¶¶ 18, 19, 20, 21)
- The respondent had not demonstrated a sufficient basis for release of the goods. His seriously disputed title required civil adjudication, and custody was to continue with the appellant in the meantime. (¶¶ 22, 23, 24, 25)
- Given the lengthy storage, the appellant could auction the goods after preserving a sample and was required to maintain an account of proceeds. Those proceeds would abide by the competent civil court’s directions in any suit instituted by the respondent. (¶¶ 26, 27)
Result
Criminal appeal disposed of by rejecting return of the goods to the respondent and relegating his title claim to the civil court. BSNL permitted to auction the goods subject to sample preservation, accounting and the civil court’s directions concerning proceeds.