The Allahabad High Court has clarified that if a seized property is not required for the logical conclusion of a trial or litigation, it should be released to the rightful owner. Justice Sanjay Kumar Pachori, while quashing previous lower court orders, emphasized:
“When the property, so seized by the investigating agency, need not physically remain with the prosecution to bring the trial or litigation to its logical conclusion, the seized property shall be released to the rightful owner, or the person who is entitled thereto.”
The case involved Indian currency worth ₹1.87 crore, seized from one Sachin Sharma during the investigation of Case Crime No. 46 of 2022 registered at PS Chetganj, Varanasi. The applicant, Waseem Riaz, claimed ownership of the amount on behalf of his father, the proprietor of Kamal Sarees. The currency was initially denied for release by the Magistrate and the Revisional Court.
The first informant, who was an agent of Sapos Services Pvt. Ltd., had no objection to releasing the money to Waseem Riaz. The Court noted this in its judgment, stating:
“The opposite party no.2/first informant has not only abstained from claiming the seized money but has also consented in writing for its release to the applicant.”
The Court noted that the seizure was made under Section 102 of Cr.P.C., which allows police officers to seize property under suspicious circumstances. However, such seizures are temporary and must be reported to the Magistrate, who can then decide on the property's custody or release.
Citing Sunderbhai Ambalal Desai v. State of Gujarat, the Court reiterated:
“It is of no use to keep such articles in police custody for years till the trial is over... the Magistrate should pass appropriate orders as contemplated under Section 451 Cr.P.C. at the earliest.”
The Income Tax Department also filed a claim, alleging the money was unaccounted, but admitted it was not seized under Section 132A of the Income Tax Act. No proceedings were initiated by the department against the court’s previous order, and it conceded it had no further objection.
Justice Pachori concluded that retaining the money served no legal purpose and ordered its interim release, adding:
“No person shall be deprived of their property without authority of law, as per Article 300A of the Constitution of India.”
The Court directed that the money be returned to the applicant after preparing a detailed inventory, including photographs and signatures of all involved parties, subject to the applicant submitting an indemnity bond and a property surety worth ₹2 crore. Importantly, the release does not determine the ownership title, which may still be contested in a civil court.
This ruling reaffirms the principle that courts must avoid unnecessary retention of seized property and act in favor of rightful claimants when legal processes allow.
Case Title: Waseem Riaz v. State of U.P. and Another [APPLICATION U/S 482 No. - 29865 of 2024 ]
Appearances: Manish Tiwary, Senior Counsel assisted by Atharva Dixit and Pranav Tiwary, counsels for the applicant, Gaurav Mahajan, counsel for Income Tax Department, Vedant Agarwal, counsel for opposite party no. 2 and Sri Tej Bhan Singh, A.G.A for State.
