Case Note & Summary
The petitioner, a contractor and de-facto complainant, filed criminal petition under Section 528 of Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023 before the High Court of Karnataka seeking release of seized trap money of ₹80,000 with interest and directions to frame general guidelines for release of trap money in corruption cases. The case emanated from complaint registered on 05-06-2022 alleging that the second respondent, then Superintendent of Central Goods and Service Tax, Preventive Wing, Ballari, demanded bribe of ₹80,000 for closure of GST liability after the complainant had already cleared outstanding dues. An FIR was registered under Section 7 of Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988 and CBI laid trap, during which accused persons were allegedly caught red-handed accepting tainted currency notes. The trap money was seized and produced before trial court as material objects in Special C.C.No.2749 of 2022. The petitioner claimed that he arranged pre-trap money from his own hard-earned resources and sought its restitution, contending that trial could take several years and absence of legal framework caused hardship to complainants. Respondent CBI admitted ownership of trap money but stated that no procedure existed for return before closure of trial and left decision to court. The core legal issue framed by court was legal status and eventual destination of trap money once object of trap accomplished. After hearing, court held that ownership of trap money vested in complainant and did not migrate to State merely because currency notes became material evidence. It recognized that seized property need not remain in judicial custody until culmination of trial, as CrPC and BNSS permit restoration pending proceedings. However, trap cases present unique evidentiary concerns because serial numbers and identifying particulars of currency notes are incorporated into recovery mahazar and physical identity may be required during evidence. To harmonize competing interests, court ruled that original currency notes could remain in judicial custody as material objects until evidentiary purpose exhausted, but there was no legal impediment for prosecuting agency through State to restore equivalent amount from State exchequer immediately after trap proceedings attained finality for investigative purposes. This approach preserved sanctity of evidence while ensuring complainant not rendered financially vulnerable for assisting law. Court relied on Sunderbhai Ambalal Desai v. State of Gujarat, (2002) 10 SCC 283, referring to Sections 451 and 457 CrPC. The decision favored complainant, establishing that public spirited citizens who assist anti-corruption should not suffer financial hardship. The court effectively directed that equivalent amount be paid to petitioner while original notes remain as exhibits, and emphasized need to foster confidence in anti-corruption mechanisms.
Headnote
A) Criminal Law - Ownership of Trap Money - Trap money vests in complainant and does not migrate to State upon seizure - Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988, Section 7; Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023, Section 528 - The petitioner, de-facto complainant, arranged pre-trap money from his own resources for a trap against accused public servant. Court held that the prosecuting agency merely employs the complainant's money as instrumentality to expose criminality and ownership never migrates to the State. Held that complainant is rightful owner and lawful custodian of trap money (Paras 9-11). B) Criminal Procedure - Disposal of Seized Property Pending Trial - Seized property need not remain in judicial custody until culmination of trial - Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973, Sections 451, 457; Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023, Section 528 - The court observed that CrPC and BNSS recognize situations where seized property may be restored to lawful owner even during pendency of proceedings. It held that prolonged deprivation of enjoyment of property without legal necessity reduces title to an abstraction. Held that restoration can occur upon conclusion of investigation, during trial, or earlier if justice demands (Paras 11-12). C) Trap Cases - Evidentiary Integrity and Proprietary Rights - Original currency notes may remain as material objects while equivalent amount restored from State exchequer - Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023, Section 528; Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973, Sections 451, 457 - Trap cases present unique dimension because currency notes' serial numbers and identifying particulars are incorporated into recovery mahazar and their physical identity has evidentiary significance. The court harmonized competing interests by holding that original currency notes may remain in judicial custody until evidentiary purpose exhausted, but there is no legal impediment for State to restore equivalent amount to complainant immediately after trap proceedings attain finality for investigative purposes. Held that such approach preserves evidence and protects complainant from financial hardship (Paras 13-18). D) Public Law - Protection of Citizen Assisting Anti-Corruption - Complainant should not be penalized financially for assisting State in unearthing corruption - Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988, Section 7 - The court emphasized that every successful trap is founded on courage of honest citizen and compelling him to wait for years for restoration would convert public spiritedness into unintended penalty. Held that legal system should assure complainants that their courage is not rewarded with financial hardship, fostering public confidence in anti-corruption mechanisms (Paras 15, 18).
Issue of Consideration
What should be the legal status and eventual destination of trap money, once the object of the trap has been accomplished?
Final Decision
The Court held that the complainant is rightful owner; original currency notes to remain as material objects; prosecuting agency/State to restore equivalent amount from State exchequer immediately after trap proceedings attain finality for investigative purposes.
Law Points
- Ownership of trap money remains with complainant and does not migrate to State upon seizure
- seized property need not remain in judicial custody until culmination of trial
- CrPC and BNSS allow restoration pending proceedings
- in trap cases original currency notes may remain as material objects while equivalent amount restored from State exchequer
- complainant should not be financially penalized for assisting anti-corruption
