Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973: ss.451, 452 – Disposal of property – Theft of copper material from the godown of Telecom Department – Accused allegedly sold the material to first respondent – Seizure of copper lead alloy moulds from first respondent and interim custody of same handed over by Magistrate to appellant under s.451 – Criminal case registered under ss.457, 381, 461, 462, 411 r/w s.34 IPC – Acquittal of all the accused – First respondent sought release of the alloy moulds under s.452 – Application for release of material filed by first respondent was kept at abeyance – Dismissal of State’s appeal against acquittal – Magistrate declined custody of seized material to first respondent, rather relegated him to prove his title before civil court – Sessions court affirmed the finding of Magistrate – High Court held that appellant had not raised a claim over the seized material and that since possession of seized material was taken over from first respondent, it should be restored to first respondent and that though interim custody was handed over to appellant it did not assert any right over the property nor did it deny the right or title of first respondent, therefore, there was no reason to relegate first respondent to civil court – On appeal, held: Where a claim is made before the court that the property does not belong to the person from whom it was seized, s.452 does not mandate that its custody should be handed over to the person from whose possession it was seized, overriding the claim of genuine title which is asserted on behalf of a third party – Prima facie, at this stage, first respondent could not indicate any basis for the claim of title in acquisition of the goods or payment which was made for acquiring them – Therefore, it was appropriate for him to agitate such a claim before the competent civil forum – In the absence of such an adjudication, the custody of the goods should remain with the appellant – High Court was in error in directing return of the goods to the first respondent – The goods were made over to the appellant as far back as in 1992 – No justification to require the appellant to hold these goods in its custody indefinitely thereby occupying valuable space and leaving productive resources unutilised – The appellant is directed to preserve a sample of the material in question in case it is required for adjudication before the competent civil court – Subject to this, permission granted to the appellant to sell the goods by auction and to maintain an account of the money which has been realised from the sale.
Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973: s.452 – Relevant consideration – A claim of title to the goods which have been seized is a relevant consideration while passing an order under s.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.
Disposing of the appeal, the Court
HELD: 1. Section 451 of the CrPC which deals with the disposal of property empowers the court before which the property is produced during an inquiry or trial to make such order as it thinks fit or for its proper custody pending the disposal of the inquiry or trial. Section 452 provides for the disposal of the property at the conclusion of the trial. In terms of sub-section
(1) of Section 452, when an inquiry or trial before a criminal court has been concluded, the court is empowered to pass an appropriate order for its disposal by destruction, confiscation or delivery to any person claiming to be entitled to the possession thereof or otherwise. Entitlement postulates a right. The function which the Court exercises under Section 452 is of a judicial nature. In making that order, the court must undoubtedly have due regard to the entitlement claimed by the person who seeks the possession of the property. Ordinarily the person from whom the property was seized would be entitled to an order under Section 452, when there is no dispute or doubt that the property belongs to him. It is only when the property belongs to the person from whom it was seized that such an order can be passed. [Paras 13, 14, 16, 19, 20][955-F-G; 956-C, G-H; 957-H, 958-A-D]
2.1 Prima facie, at this stage, there is no reasonable basis in the record for handing over custody of the seized goods to the respondent. The judgment of the trial court showed that the claimant had produced certain invoices between 8 February and
20 February 1992, recovery having been effected on 21 February 1992. The Magistrate noted that no cash receipts were produced by the first respondent and though vouchers were produced by CW-10, they did not prove that they were for the purchase of the seized goods. Nothing at all was shown in response. [Para 23][959-B-D]
2.2 The claim which has been made by the first respondent to the title to the goods is seriously in dispute. Hence it was but appropriate and proper that such a claim be agitated before the competent civil forum. The view of the Magistrate was correct. In the absence of such an adjudication, the custody of the goods, which have been seized, should continue to be with the appellant. The order of the Magistrate shows that the appellant had indicated through its evidence that the goods were stolen from its godown and were of a nature which were not capable of being acquired from the open market. The High Court was in error in directing return of the goods to the first respondent. The first respondent must, be relegated to the civil court for establishing its claim and title to the goods as observed in the order passed by the Magistrate, which was affirmed by the Sessions court. The goods were made over to the appellant as far back as in 1992. There is no reason to require the appellant to hold these goods in its custody indefinitely thereby occupying valuable space and leaving productive resources unutilised. The appellant shall preserve a sample of the goods in question, should it be required for adjudication before the competent civil court. Subject to this, permission was granted to the appellant to sell the goods by auction and to maintain an account of the money which has been realised from the sale. [Paras 24, 25, 26][959-E-H; 960-A-B] N. Madhavan v. State of Kerala (1979) 4 SCC 1 : [1980]
1 SCR 228 ; Pushkar Singh v. State of Madhya Bharat & Ors. AIR 1953 SC 508 – relied on.
As published in the Supreme Court Reports, Supreme Court of India. Text from the Indian Supreme Court Judgments open data set (Dattam Labs), CC BY 4.0.
This page is for informational and research purposes only and does not constitute legal advice. Consult a qualified advocate for advice specific to your situation.