Supreme Court: Seized Property Must Not Be Retained Under Section 452 CrPC

• The Supreme Court ordered the return of a licensed revolver seized in 2012 to an individual acquitted in 2013.
• Mohammad Jamal Mohammad Yunus, a private bodyguard, had his property held for over a decade despite his acquittal in an attempt to murder case.
• Lower courts had rejected or deferred his application for property return, citing a pending appeal against his acquittal.
• The Supreme Court ruled that seized property must be considered for return on its own merits, even if an appeal against acquittal is pending.
• The Court emphasized that seized property should not remain in custody longer than absolutely necessary, applying Section 452 CrPC and Article 32.

In a significant ruling, the Apex Court asserted that an individual acquitted in a criminal case cannot be denied the return of property seized during the investigation solely because an appeal against their acquittal is pending.

The Supreme Court recently issued a directive for the return of a licensed revolver, which had been seized more than a decade ago. The weapon belonged to Mohammad Jamal Mohammad Yunus, a private bodyguard, and was confiscated following an FIR registered in 2012 at Bazar Peth Police Station in Jalgaon, Maharashtra. Yunus was subsequently acquitted in an attempt to murder case by the sessions court on March 11, 2013, along with seven co-accused. The court had initially ordered the return of seized articles after the appeal period expired.

Yunus began efforts to reclaim his property by filing an application in 2014 under Section 452 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 (now Section 498 of the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023). He argued that he was unable to secure employment without the weapon and expressed readiness to comply with any court-imposed conditions for its release. However, the additional sessions judge rejected his application on February 22, 2015, citing the ongoing appeal against his acquittal.

Yunus then escalated the matter to the Bombay High Court, which directed that his application be heard concurrently with the appeals against his acquittal. This decision resulted in both his application and the appeals remaining unresolved since 2014, leaving his revolver in official custody for over a decade since its seizure and more than ten years post-acquittal.

The Supreme Court, comprising Justices Vikram Nath, R Mahadevan, and Aparesh Kumar Singh, critically examined the prolonged retention of Yunus's revolver. The Court found that both the lower courts had failed in their duty to independently assess Yunus's application for the return of his property. Instead, they had allowed the mere pendency of appeals against his acquittal to prevent a substantive adjudication of his claim.

In a significant ruling, the Apex Court asserted that an individual acquitted in a criminal case cannot be denied the return of property seized during the investigation solely because an appeal against their acquittal is pending. The Bench emphasized that courts are obligated to conduct an independent examination to determine if there are valid grounds to continue retaining the seized property, rather than holding it indefinitely due to an ongoing appeal.

This directive came as the Supreme Court allowed a writ petition filed by Yunus under Article 32 of the Constitution, specifically ordering the release of his licensed revolver. The Court underscored that even when an appeal against an acquittal is active, any application seeking the return of seized property must be considered and decided on its own merits, without being automatically deferred.

Central to the Supreme Court's decision was the interpretation of Section 452 CrPC (now Section 498 BNSS), which empowers a criminal court to issue appropriate orders regarding the disposal of property upon the conclusion of an inquiry or trial. The Court underscored a fundamental tenet, consistently recognized in its prior rulings, that property confiscated by authorities or held by the judiciary must not be retained for any duration exceeding what is strictly essential.

The Bench highlighted that the court's role is to carefully consider the specific facts and circumstances of each case to determine whether the property should be returned or retained. In Yunus's situation, the Court noted that he had been acquitted of all charges, and there was no other material evidence presented that would justify the continued retention of his revolver.

Consequently, the Supreme Court firmly held that the mere existence of pending appeals against an acquittal cannot, by itself, serve as a sufficient reason to withhold the return of seized property without a thorough examination of the petitioner’s claim on its merits. This ruling reinforces the judiciary's responsibility to prevent indefinite state custody of personal property, particularly for individuals who have been cleared of charges, thereby upholding fundamental rights and ensuring efficient judicial process.

Source: Original reporting via legal news source