http://JUDIS.NIC.IN SUPREME COURT OF INDIA Page 1 of 3  

PETITIONER: RAM PARKASH SHARMA

       Vs.

RESPONDENT: STATE OF HARYANA

DATE OF JUDGMENT18/04/1978

BENCH: KRISHNAIYER, V.R. BENCH: KRISHNAIYER, V.R. TULZAPURKAR, V.D.

CITATION:  1978 AIR 1282            1978 SCR  (3) 691  1978 SCC  (2) 491

ACT: Criminal  Procedure  Code, (Act II of 1974),  1973,  Section 437-Procedure  upon  seizure  of property,  by  the  Police- Seizure reported to the Special judge, but not yet  produced before the Court-Power of the Court to release the property.

HEADNOTE: A considerable sum of money was recovered by the Police from the  appellant  and  seized in connection  with  an  offence registered against an accused Person’ namely, Sri Bansi Lal. An  application  made  under Section  457  of  the  Criminal Procedure Code was rejected by the Courts below holding that the  Special  Judge  had  no power  to  release  the  seized property. Allowing the appeal by special leave, the Court, HELD  : 1. Chapter 34 of the Criminal Procedure  Code  deals with  disposal  of property.  There is a trichotomy  in  the sense that where property has been seized by the Police, but not produced before the Court, the power to dispose it of is covered  by  section 457.  Where property  has  been  seized and/or  otherwise produced before the Court, the  manner  to dispose  of such property is governed by Sec. 451.   If  the question  of disposal arises after the enquiry or  trial  in any  criminal  court  is  concluded,  the  disposal  of  the property involved in the case is governed by Sec. 452.   The situation  is  squarely covered by s.  457  Crl.   Procedure Code. [692 B-C, E] 2.(a)  The  fact that the Court has power to  dispose  of property  seized by the police but not yet  produced  before the  Court does not mean that the Special Judge must  always release  such property to the person from whom the  property has been recovered, specially when the stage of the case  is in suspicion, the investigation is not over and charge-sheet has  not yet been laid.  The Court has to be circumspect  in such a situation before releasing the property. [692 E-F] (b)Whenever  the claimant asks for the property  back,  it does  not  mean  that  he should  be  given  back  the  said property.  That has to be decided on its own merits in  each case  and  the discretion of the Court has to  be  exercised after   due  consideration  of  the  interests  of   justice including  the  prospective necessity of the  production  of ’these  seized- articles at the time of the trial.   If  the

http://JUDIS.NIC.IN SUPREME COURT OF INDIA Page 2 of 3  

release  of the property seized will, in any manner,  affect or prejudice the course of justice at the time of the trial, it will be a wise discretion to reject the claim for return. [692 F-G] Smt.  Basava Kom Dyaman Gond Patil v. State of  Mysore,  and Ors.,(  C.A  243/71  dt.  19-4-77),  [1977]  4  S.C.C.  368, referred to. [The  Court directed the Special Judge to  pass  appropriate orders u/s 457 Crl.  Procedure Code expeditiously]

JUDGMENT: CRIMINAL APPELLATE JURISDICTION : Criminal Appeal No. 184 of 1978. Appeal by Special Leave from the Judgment and Order dated 7- 10-77  of the Punjab & Haryana High Court in Criminal  Misc. No. 4623-M of 1977. M.   C. Bhandare, (Mrs.) S. Bhandare, (Miss) M. Poduvall and A. N. Karkhanis for the Appellant. 692 H. S. Marwah and M. N. Shroff for the Respondent. The Order of the Court was delivered by KRISHNA IYER, J. Leave granted. The short point that arises in this appeal is as to  whether the  Criminal Court has power to release property seized  by the police from a person and reported to the Special  Judge, but  not yet produced before the Court.  We think the  court has  such power and that seems to be the,scheme of the  Code itself. Chapter  34  of  the  Criminal  Procedure  Code  deals  with disposal  of property.  There is a trichotomy in  the  sense that  where property has been seized by the police, but  not produced  before  the court, the power to dispose it  of  is covered  by  section 457.  Where property  has  been  seized and/or  otherwise produced before the court, the  manner  to dispose  of such property is governed by sec. 451.   If  the question  of disposal arises after the enquiry or  trial  in any  criminal  court  is  concluded,  the  disposal  of  the property  involved in the case is governed by sec. 452.   We need  not  go  elaborately into  the  implications  of  each provision  since  we  are not called upon to do  so  in  the present case. Section  457  covers  the facts of the  present  case.   The Police  have recovered a considerable sum of money from  the appellant and the money is stated to be seized in connection with  an  offence  registered  against  an  accused  person, namely, Shri Bansi Lal.  Whether the appellant himself  will be  a witness or an accused is not possible to state at  the present  moment according to the counsel for the State.   Be that  as it may, the situation is squarely covered  by  sec. 457, Cr.  P.C. However, the fact that the court has power to dispose  of  property  seized  by the  police  but  not  yet produced  before  the court does not mean that  the  Special Judge  must always release such property to the person  from whom  the property has been recovered, especially  when  the stage of the case is in suspicion, the investigation is  not over and charge-sheet has not yet been laid.  The court  has to  be circumspect in such a situation before releasing  the property.  While we reverse the decision of the courts below that  the Special Judge had no power to release  the  seized property,  we should not be taken to mean that whenever  the claimant asks for the property back, he should be given back the said property.  That has to be decided on its own merits in  each  case  and the discretion of the court  has  to  be

http://JUDIS.NIC.IN SUPREME COURT OF INDIA Page 3 of 3  

exercised  after  due  consideration  of  the  interests  of justice   including   the  prospective  necessity   of   the production  of  these  seized articles at the  time  of  the trial.   If the release of the property seized will, in  any manner,  affect  or prejudice the course of justice  at  the time  of the trial, it will be a wise discretion  to  reject the claim for return. In  the  present case, counsel for the State  is  unable  to state  whether in future prosecution may have to  rely  upon the currency notes in specie seized from the appellant.   It is  quite on record that they may be so required  especially having regard to the circumstance that the monies are stated by the prosecution to have, been buried although the 693 appellant,  in this Court, stoutly denies  this  allegation. All that we, need do at the moment is to uphold the power of the  court  to release the property and direct  the  Special Judge  to hold an investigation into, the necessity for  the notes seized to be retained with the police or in the  court for  future use at the time of the inquiry or trial.  If  he is  of  the  opinion that the notes  are  so  required,  the property  shall not be released. If, on the other hand,  the notes  are not needed in any manner in the later  stages  of the  inquiry  or trial, it will be proper for the  court  to release  the property on the appellant  furnishing  adequate security. In  reaching  the  conclusion  we have  taken  note  of  the decision  of this Court in Smt.  Basava Kom Dyaman  Gond  v. State  of Mysore and others(1) Of course, the Police  should not  indefinitely keep property in its custody nor need  the court.  keep  the  property seized and  produced  before  it unduly long but this does not whittle down the need for  the court to be vigilant when an application is made for  return of property seized by the police as to the necessity of such property being required in the future course of the trial. Having  regard to these circumstances, the court  will  pass appropriate orders under sec. 457, Cr.  P. C. regarding  the disposal of the property seized by the police in this  case. The  Special Judge will dispose of the matter  expeditiously since considerable time has elapsed.  The appeal is disposed of accordingly. S.R.                          Appeal allowed. (1) 1974 (4) S.C.C. 388. 694