Case Note & Summary
The appellant, Nanasaheb Nirmal, was the original informant in a dacoity case. He was robbed of cash and articles on 27 June 2000. During investigation, cash totaling Rs. 22,120 was seized from eight accused persons. The trial court acquitted the accused due to lack of identification parade and, since the cash could not be identified as stolen property, ordered its forfeiture to the State. The informant appealed under Section 454 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973. The High Court noted that all accused had denied the seizure of cash and thus did not claim it. The court reasoned that when the accused disclaim the money, it should be returned to the informant, who was the victim, rather than forfeited to the State. The appeal was allowed, and the order of forfeiture was set aside, directing that the seized cash be handed over to the appellant.
Headnote
A) Criminal Procedure Code - Appeal against forfeiture - Section 454 CrPC - Return of seized property - The informant appealed against the order of the Additional Sessions Judge directing forfeiture of cash seized from accused in a dacoity case to the State. The accused had disclaimed the cash. The High Court held that when the accused disclaim the seized cash, it should be handed over to the informant, who was the victim of the dacoity, rather than forfeited to the State. (Paras 1-8)
Issue of Consideration
Whether the seized cash, which was not identified as stolen property but was disclaimed by the accused, should be forfeited to the State or returned to the informant.
Final Decision
Appeal allowed. Order of forfeiture of cash to State set aside. Seized cash of Rs. 22,120 to be handed over to appellant Nanasaheb Nirmal.
Law Points
- Section 454 CrPC
- forfeiture of property
- return of seized property to rightful owner
- accused disclaiming ownership
- identification of stolen property
