RAM PARKASH SHARMA versus STATE OF HARYANA

Citation: [1978] 3 S.C.R. 691 · Decided: 18-04-1978 · Supreme Court of India · Bench: V.R. KRISHNA IYER, V.D. TULZAPURKAR · Disposal: Appeal(s) allowed

Judgment (excerpt)

) -
691 
RAM PARKASH SHARMA 
v. 
STATE OF HARYANA 
April 18, 1978 
[V. R. KRISHNA IYER AND V. D. TuLZAPURKAR, JJ.] 
ll 
Criniinal Procedure Code, (Act II of 1974), 1973~ Section 437-Procedure 
upon seizure of p1·operty, by the Police-Seizure renorted' to the Special Judge, 
but not yet produced before the Court-Power of the Court to release the 
property. 
A considerable sum of money was recovered by the Police from the appel-
lant and seized in connection with an offence registered against an accused 
nerson, namely, Sri Bansi Lal. 
An application made under Section 457 of 
C 
the Criminal Procedure Code was rejected Dy the Courts below holding that 
the Special Jqdge 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 other~. I} 
wise produced before the CO'lrt, the manner to dispose of such property is 
governed by Sec. 451. If thci .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 Cr!. Procedure Code. [692 B-C, EI 
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 
E' 
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-Fl 
(b) \Vhenever 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 
It 
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 vlise di'scretion to reject 
the claim for return. [692 F-G] 
Smt. Ba;ava Kon1 Dya1nan Gond Patil v. State of A1)•;ore, 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 
G: 
Crl. Procedure Code expeditiously] 
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, (Mi.;;:) M. Poduvall and A·. 
N. Karkhanis for the Appellant. 
A 
B 
c 
D 
E 
F 
G 
H 
692 
SUPREME COURT REPORTS 
[1978] 3 S.C.R. 
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 Cri-
minal 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 con-
ciuded, 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 acc

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