STATE BANK OF INDIA versus RAJENDRA KUMAR SINGH & ORS.

Citation: [1969] 2 S.C.R. 216 · Decided: 25-09-1968 · Supreme Court of India · Bench: J.C. SHAH · Disposal: Appeal(s) allowed

Judgment (excerpt)

STATE BANK OF INDIA 
v. 
RAJENDRA KUMAR SINGH & ORS. 
September 25, 1968 
[J. C. SHAH, V. RAMASWAM! AND A. N. GROVER, JJ.] 
B-
Code of Criminal Procedure, 1898, Ss. 517 and 520-0rder of the 
Court directing return of seized property-If necessary to give party 
adversel,y affected notice of hearing and opportunity to be heard-Who 
has 'rlght to possess' lVithin the meaning of s. 517. 
21 currency notes of Rs. 1,000 each were seized from the Appellant 
Bank by the police in the course of an investigation of a case again.st the 
C 
third respondent of cheating 
the 
fust and second respondents. 
The 
seized· currency notes were said to be part of the property obtained by 
the third respondent from the other two respondents. 
The third respon· 
dent was acquitted by the trial court of the offence charged. 
In the 
course of the trial the appellant made an 
application 
under 
section 
517(1) of the Code of Criminal Procedure asking for the delivery of 
the currency notes to it on the ground that the appellant was an innocent 
D· 
third party who had received the said notes without any knowledge or 
suspicion 'of their having been involved in the commission of an ... offence. 
By its order of 24th April 1962, the' trial court allowed the application 
and directed that the currency notes should be returned to the appellant. 
Snbseqently an appeal filed by the State' was allowed by the High Court 
whii:h set aside the trial court's order of acquittal of the third respondent 
and convicted him of the offence charged. 
On an application made1 by 
the first respondent asking for delivery of the currency notes to him as 
E 
they belonged to him and the second respondent, the High Court, by an 
order of April 5, 1963 directed that the notes be handed over to the 
first and second respondents. 
In the appeal to this Court, it was contended, inter alia, on behalf of 
the appellant that the High Court had reversed the order of the 
trial 
court directing the return of the currency notes to the appellant without 
giving a notice to the appellant. and without giving an opportunity of 
F 
being heard; and that the order of April 5, 1963 was therefore violative 
of the principles of natural justice and was illegal. 
The contention on 
behalf of the respondents was that there was no provision in section 520 
of the Code of Criminal Procedure for giving notice to the 
affected 
parties and the order of the High Court could not be challenged on the 
ground that no hearing was given ·to the appellant. It was also contend-
ed that the High Court had a discretion under the statute as to whom 
the property was to be returned and there was no reason why this Court 
G 
should interfere with the exercise of discretion by the High Court. 
HELD : The appeal must be allowed and the order of the High Court 
dated April 5, 1963 set ·aside. 
The 
seized 
currency notes must 
be 
directed to be returned to the appellant. 
(!) Jt is mainfest that the High Court was bound to give notice to 
the appellant before reversing the order of the trial court directing the 
H 
disposal of the property under s. 517 of the Code of Crimimrl Procedure. 
As no such notice was given to the appellant, the order of the High Court 
dated 5th April 1963 is vitiated in law. 
Although the statute does not 
expressly require a notice to be issued, or a hearing to be given to the 
• 
• 
' 
,_ 
-
_, 
, 
... 
• 
--
----~ 
• 
.. 
STATE BANK; v. R. K. SINGH (Ramaswami, J.) 
217 
A 
parties adversely affected, there is in the eye of law a necessary .implica· 
tion that the parties adversely affected should be heard be!fore the Court 
makes an order for return of the seized property. [220 C-D, 221 El 
B 
c 
D 
E 
F 
Cooper v. Wandsworth Board of Works. (1863) 14 C.B.N.S. 180; 
Ridge v. Baldwin, 
(1963) 2 W.L.R. 935 and Board of High School 
and Intermediate Education, U.P. Allahabad v. Ghanshyam Das Gupta 
and Ors, A.LR. 1962 S.C. 1110, referred to. 
(2) The appellant asserted that it had obtained the currency notes 
in the normal course of its business and without any koowledge or sus-
pecion of their having been involved in the eommission of any offenoe 
and that the respondents had not alleged fraud or lack of good faith on 
the part of the appellant, In the circumstances the High Court shonld 
have directed the return of the currency notes to the appellant which 
had the "righrto possess" the notes within the language of s. 517 of the 
Code of Criminal Procedure. Property in coin

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