BHARAT SANCHAR NIGAM LIMITED versus SURYANARAYANAN & ANR.

Citation: [2018] 13 S.C.R. 950 · Decided: 13-12-2018 · Supreme Court of India · Bench: D.Y. CHANDRACHUD · Disposal: Disposed off

cites 1 · see the full citation network in Lexace

Judgment (excerpt)

A
B
C
D
E
F
G
H
950
SUPREME COURT REPORTS
[2018] 13  S.C.R.
BHARAT SANCHAR NIGAM LIMITED
v.
SURYANARAYANAN & ANR.
(Criminal Appeal No. 170 of 2009)
DECEMBER 13, 2018
[DR. DHANANJAYA Y CHANDRACHUD AND
M. R. SHAH, JJ.]
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
[2018] 13  S.C.R. 950
950
A
B
C
D
E
F
G
H
951
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 th

Excerpt shown. Read the full judgment & AI analysis in Lexace.