http://JUDIS.NIC.

IN SUPREME COURT OF INDIA Page 1 of 3

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