1 2025:CGHC:14154 NAFR HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR CRR No. 310 of 2025 1 - Santosh Kumar S/o Kanshilal Sahu Aged About 32 Years Occupation Service In S.E.C.L., Pandopara, R/o Village- Salhi, P.S. And Tahsil- Ramanujnagar, District- Surajpur (C.G.) ... Applicant(s) versus 1 - State Of Chhattisgarh Through - The Station House Officer, Police Of Police Station Jainagar, District- Surajpur (C.G.) 2 - Reeta Sahu W/o Ashok Kumar Sahu Aged About 47 Years R/o Bazar Para, Surajpur, District- Surajpur (C.G.) ... Respondent(s) For Petitioner(s) : Shri Anil Gulati, Advocate For Respondent/State : Ms Prabha Sharma, PL (Hon’ble Shri Justice Arvind Kumar Verma) Order on Board 24/03/2025 The present criminal revision under Section 438/442 of the BNSS,2023 has been filed against the order dated 23.01.2025 passed by the learned Additional Sessions Judge (FTC) Surajpur, District Surajpur in Sessions trial No. 08/2025 whereby the aplication filed by 2 the applicant under Section 497 of the BNSS 2023 has been dismissed. 2. Brief facts of the case is that FIR was registered against one Kuldeep Sahu alleging that on receiving information that said Kuldeep Sahu had committed the crime and was absconding from the car bearing registration No. CG-29/AD-5666, the police apprehended and stopped near Karma Main Road who shot fire on the police personnel, in turn the police also shot fire but he fled away. During the crouse of investigation, the police seized sum of Rs. 2,00,000/- from the applicant on 25.10.2024 and in the seizure memo, mother of the applicant has stated that he obtained R. 2,00,000/- from the mother of Kuldeep Sahu. The said amount was accumulated by the father of the applicant for the purpose of construction of house which was taken away by Kuldeep Sahu. 3. The applicant moved application under Section 497 of the BNSS for Supurdnama of Rs. 2,00,000/- before the learned Additional Sessions Judge (FTC) Surajpur, District Surajpur which was rejected on the ground that it is a case of trial against which the applicant has filed the present revision. 4. Contention of the counsel for the applicant is that the order impugned is illegal and improper therefore it is liable to be set aside. He submit that as per the charge sheet the memorandum statement of the accused persons were nor recorded however, in the property seizure memo dated 25.10.2024, mother of Kuldeep Sahu-respondent No.2 has stated that on 14.10./2024, the applicant had obtained the money from the house of Kuldeep Sahu. He submits that there is no evidence to demonstrate that the amount which was alleged to be seized from the 3 applicant belongs to the accused persons. 5. Per contra, learned counsel for the respondent No.1/State submits that the impugned order passed by the trial court is well reasoned order passed on the finding and reasoning mentioned therein, therefore, there is no illegality or infirmity on the part of the respondent authority, thus, the instant revision deserves to be dismissed at the threshold. 6. It is admitted fact that the amount of Rs. 2,00,000/- belong to the applicant and it has also been admitted by mother of Kuldeep Sahu that the said cash was taken by the applicant as the same belong to him. From the above narration, it appears that the money stated to be seized from the applicant belongs to him and in the absence of any rebuttal proof showing that the money seized did not belong to the applicant, the presumption is, the seized money prima facie belongs to the applicant. 7. It may be useful to refer the decision of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in Sunderbhai Ambalal Desai v. State of Gujarat, reported in AIR 2003 SC 638, wherein the Hon'ble Supreme Court has clearly stated the procedure to be followed for disposal of the seized valuable articles and currency notes, vehicles, seized liquor and Narcotic drugs. In paragraphs 10 to 14, it has been held as under: 10. To avoid such a situation, in our view, powers under Section 451 Cr.P.C. Should be exercised promptly and at the earliest. Valuable Articles and Currency Notes : With regard to valuable articles, such as, golden or silver ornaments or articles studded with precious stones, it is submitted 4 that it is of no use to keep such articles in police custody for years till the trial is over. In our view, this submission requires to be accepted. In such cases, Magistrate should pass appropriate orders as contemplated under Section 451 Cr.P.C. at the earliest. 8. As far as disposal of the seized currency notes are concerned, Section 4 97 BNSS clearly provides: (i)for the proper custody pending conclusion of the inquiry or trial; (ii)to order it to be sold or otherwise disposed of, after recording such evidence as it thinks necessary; (iii)if the property is subject to speedy and natural decay, to dispose of the same. From the above, it is clear that powers under Section 497 of the BNSS should be exercised expeditiously and judiciously. It would serve various purposes, viz.: (1)Owner of the article would not suffer because of its remaining unused or by its misappropriation; (2)Court or the police would not be required to keep the article in safe custody; (3)If the proper panchnama before handing over possession of article is prepared, that can be used in evidence instead of its production before the Court during the trial. If necessary, evidence could also be recorded describing the nature of the property in detail; and (4)The jurisdiction of the Court to record evidence should be exercised promptly so that there may not be further chance of tampering with the articles. 9. For this purpose, if material on record indicates that such articles belong to the complainant at whose house theft, robbery or dacoity has 5 taken place, then seized articles be handed over to the complainant after:- (1)preparing detailed proper panchnama of such articles; (2)taking photographs of such articles and a bond that such articles would be produced if required at the time of trial; and (3)after taking proper security. 10. For this purpose, the Court may follow the procedure of recording such evidence, as it thinks necessary, as provided under Section 451, Cr.P.C. (now 497 of BNSS). The bond and security should be taken so as to prevent the evidence being lost, altered or destroyed. The Court should see that photographs of such articles are attested or countersigned by the complainant, accused as well as by the person to whom the custody is handed over. Still however, it would be the function of the Court under Section 451, Cr.P.C. to impose any other appropriate condition. In case, where such articles are not handed over either to the complainant or to the person from whom such articles are seized or its claimants, then the Court may direct that such articles be kept in bank lockers. Similarly, if articles are required to kept in police custody, it would be open to the SHO after preparing proper panchnama to keep such articles in a bank locker. In any case, such articles should be produced before the Magistrate within a week of their seizure. If required, the Court may direct that such articles be handed over back to the Investigating Officer for further investigation and identification. However, in no set of circumstances, the Investigating Officer should keep such articles in custody for a longer period for the purpose of investigation and identification. For currency notes, similar procedure can be followed. 6 10. In view of the decision in Sunderbhai Ambalal Desai (supra), the applicant being a claimant to the money seized in the case on hand is entitled to get interim custody, subject to the fulfillment of the conditions stipulated in Sunderbhai Ambalal Desai, supra and also as per the provision of Section 451 Cr.P.C. now 497 BNSS. 11. Having regard to the documents produced by the applicant, explaining the source of the amount seized, it has to be held that the applicant is the rightful owner of the seized amount and is legally entitled for the interim custody of the seized cash. In the said circumstances, there is no justification to retain the cash belonging to the applicant as has been held in the case of Sunderbhai Ambalal Desai vs. State of Gujarat with C.M. Mudaliar vs. State of Gujarat reported in (2002) 10 Supreme Court Cases 283, has laid down the guidelines for release of the properties seized during investigation. Criminal Revision petition is allowed. 12. The application filed by the applicant seeking interim custody of the above referred material objects is allowed on following conditions: (1) Revision petitioner shall execute surety to the tune of Rs.2,00,000/-. (2) Revision petitioner is hereby directed to take the photographs and videographs of the seized material objects, for which the Investigating Agency shall cooperate and produce the same before the Court in a pendrive. (2) If any such application is made, learned Trial Magistrate is at liberty to pass appropriate order. Sd/- (Arvind Kumar Verma) Judge SUGUNA DUBEY Digitally signed by SUGUNA DUBEY Date: 2025.03.28 11:14:18 +0530