Case Note & Summary
The matter pertained to an appeal before the Supreme Court against a common order of the High Court of Andhra Pradesh granting interim custody of seized vehicles to the respondent company in a criminal case involving allegations of misappropriation, forgery, and criminal trespass. The dispute arose between Krishnan Narayana, a director of M/s Pure Minerals and formerly a director of respondent company M/s Earth Stein Private Limited, and the company along with other individuals. The vehicles, namely one Bolero City Pick-up, three excavators, and one Ashok Leyland Tipper, were purchased between 2014 and 2022 in the name of M/s Pure Minerals. The appellant alleged that on 31.05.2023, he was forced to sign blank papers leading to a forged resignation from the respondent company on 16.06.2023, and subsequently on 31.08.2023, the respondents trespassed and took away the vehicles. An FIR No. 353/2023 was registered on 17.09.2023. The respondents, on the other hand, alleged that the appellant misappropriated Rs. 1,73,11,894 from the respondent company and used these funds to purchase the vehicles in his own company's name, leading to a counter-FIR No. 354/2023 under Section 406 IPC. Additionally, the appellant lodged another FIR No. 102/2024 regarding intimidation and forgery. The initial investigation in FIR 353/2023 resulted in a closure report as a 'mistake of fact' on 14.08.2024, but upon re-investigation, a chargesheet was filed on 09.02.2025. During investigation, police seized the vehicles from the respondent company's premises on 07.02.2025. Meanwhile, the closure of FIR 102/2024 was affirmed up to the Supreme Court. The appellant sought interim custody of the vehicles before the Trial Court, which was dismissed on 26.03.2025, and the respondent company's similar petition was dismissed on 16.05.2025. The High Court, by the impugned order dated 18.09.2025, allowed the respondent company's petition and dismissed the appellant's, granting interim custody to the respondent subject to an undertaking. The High Court observed that the appellant, being a director, had purchased machinery with company funds, submitted a resignation that was accepted, and gave an undertaking allowing the company to use the vehicles until settlement. It also noted that the police had referred the case as false and the refer chargesheet had attained finality, making the seizure illegal. The Supreme Court examined the scope of Sections 451 and 457 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973, which confer discretion on the court to entrust interim custody to the person best entitled to possession, focusing on preventing decay and preserving property value without adjudicating title. The Court referred to precedents including N. Madhavan v. State of Kerala and Sunder Bhai Ambalal Desai v. State of Gujarat, which emphasize judicious and expeditious exercise of such power, and in the latter, the principle that the ostensible owner as per registration certificate should normally be given custody. However, the judgment text provided is incomplete, and the Supreme Court's final decision and reasoning beyond the discussion of legal principles are not available.
Headnote
A) Criminal Procedure - Interim Custody of Seized Property - Discretion of Court under Sections 451 and 457 CrPC - Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973, Sections 451, 457 - The provisions grant the court broad discretion to order delivery of seized property to the person entitled to possession, aiming to prevent decay and loss of value pending trial, without adjudicating title. The Court reiterated the principles from N. Madhavan v. State of Kerala and Sunder Bhai Ambalal Desai v. State of Gujarat, emphasizing expeditious and judicious exercise of such power, and noted that the ostensible owner as per registration certificate is normally entitled to custody. (Paras 25-29)
Issue of Consideration
As to who, between the parties, is entitled to interim custody of the subject vehicles at this stage, in terms of Sections 451 and 457 of the CrPC?
Final Decision
Decision not clearly stated
Law Points
- Legal points not extracted
- Sections 451 and 457 CrPC vest court with wide discretion to grant interim custody to person best entitled to possession
- object is to prevent decay and preserve value
- court does not adjudicate title
- discretion must be exercised judiciously on sound principles
