Case Note & Summary
The present appeal was filed under Section 454(1) of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973, challenging the order dated 21.01.2010 passed by the Fast Track (Sessions) Judge-V, Bangalore city in Sessions Case No.7/2003, insofar as it related to the return of seized material objects (M.Os.1 to 11 and 22 to 41) to the first respondent (complainant) instead of to the appellants. The appellants were the accused in the said sessions case. Appellant No.1 was the first accused, and appellants No.2 and 3 were his minor children. The charge sheet had been filed against appellant No.1 and his parents and brother for offences punishable under Sections 498A, 304B, 302, 306, 201 read with 34 of the Indian Penal Code, 1860, and Sections 3 and 4 of the Dowry Prohibition Act, 1961. All the accused were acquitted by a considered judgment in S.C.No.7/2003 on 21.01.2010. Being aggrieved by the portion of the judgment directing the return of the seized property to the complainant, the appellants filed the present appeal. The High Court, after hearing the parties, held that upon acquittal, the property seized from the accused should normally be returned to them unless there is any other proceeding requiring its retention. The court found no such proceeding and accordingly allowed the appeal, setting aside the trial court's order and directing the return of the seized material objects to the appellants.
Headnote
A) Criminal Procedure Code - Disposal of Property - Section 454(1) Cr.P.C. - Appeal against order of disposal of property - The appellants, who were acquitted of all charges, challenged the trial court's order directing return of seized M.Os.1 to 11 and 22 to 41 to the complainant instead of to them. The High Court held that upon acquittal, the property seized from the accused should normally be returned to them unless there is any other proceeding requiring its retention. The order of the trial court was set aside and the seized material objects were directed to be returned to the appellants. (Paras 1-4)
Issue of Consideration
Whether the order of the trial court directing return of seized material objects to the complainant instead of the acquitted accused is sustainable in law.
Final Decision
Appeal allowed. The order dated 21.01.2010 passed by the Fast Track (Sessions) Judge-V, Bangalore city in S.C.No.7/2003 insofar as it relates to returning of seized material objects 1 to 11 and 22 to 41 to the first respondent is set aside. The seized material objects shall be returned to the appellants.
Law Points
- Section 454(1) Cr.P.C.
- disposal of property upon acquittal
- entitlement of acquitted accused to return of seized property
