1 2025:CGHC:39061-DB NAFR HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR CRA No. 1667 of 2024 Manat Ram Poya S/o Rasai Poya Aged About 27 Years R/o Tadbedi, Police Station Chhote Bethiya, District- Kanker, Chhattisgarh. ...Appellant versus State Of Chhattisgarh Through Station House Officer, Police Station City Kotwali, Dhamtari, District- Dhamtari, Chhattisgarh. Respondent(s) (Cause-title taken from Case Information System) For Appellant : Mr. Ashok Dixit, Advocate For State : Mr. Hariom Rai, PL Hon'ble Shri Ramesh Sinha, Chief Justice Hon’ble Shri Bibhu Datta Guru, Judge Order on Board Per Ramesh Sinha, Chief Justice 06/08/2025 1. The instant appeal under Section 21(1) of the National Investigation Agency (NIA) Act, 2008 has been preferred by the appellant against the order dated 13/08/2024 passed in Special Case (N.I.A.) No. 06/2023 passed by the learned Special Judge (NIA) Act, Bilaspur (C.G.), whereby, the appellant has been acquitted from under Section 147, 149 RAHUL JHA Digitally signed by RAHUL JHA Date: 2025.08.06 19:09:39 +0530 2 & 419 of the IPC and Section 10, 13 (1), 38 (2) and 39(2) of the Prevention of Unlawful Activities Act, 1967 and Section 66 (घ) of the Information Technology Act. However, the amount of Rs. 36,000/- seized at the time of investigation has been directed to confiscated. Now by the present appeal, the appellant is seeking setting-aside the impugned judgment of para 42 wherein, the confiscation order has been passed. 2. Facts of the case in brief is that the Police of Police Station City Kotwali, Dhamtari received a secret information from the informer that on the date of incident i.e. 16/012023, four-five suspicious female and male persons spreading the thoughts of Naxali Moist in the city and nearby areas of Dhamtari in a confidential manner. On the basis of the said information, the police personnel made a raid and caught hold the accused persons and on search the police Personnel an amount of Rs. 36,000/- (denomination of 500X72) from the pant/pocket of the appellant and also one mobile of Vivo. On completion of entire process as also the investigation, the police submitted the charge-sheet and the trial Court examined the prosecution witnesses and on due appreciation material available on record, by the judgment dated 13/08/2024, the accused persons including the petitioner have been acquitted. However, at para 42 of the impugned judgment, the learned trial Court ordered for confiscation of Rs. 36,000/- which has been seized from the petitioner herein. Thus, this appeal only in respect of setting-aside para 42 of the impugned judgment and for refund of Rs. 36000/- to him. 3 3. Learned counsel for the applicant would submit that the appellant has not committed any offence and he has been falsely implicated. He would submit that once the trial Court found that the accused has not committed the offence and acquitted him, it ought to have refunded amount of Rs. 36000/- which has been seized from him. He would submit that though the mobile phone seized has been directed to be return, but in an illegally and arbitrary manner, the amount has been directed to be confiscated. He would submit that the applicant is a poor person and is suffering from acute financial crises. 4. On the other hand, learned counsel would oppose the submission and would submit that the trial Court has rightly confiscated the amount which has been seized from the accused/petitioner herein. 5. We have heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the pleadings. 6. It is well settled that mere acquittal of an accused does not automatically entitle him to the return of the seized property, unless the accused satisfactorily proves that the seized amount or article legitimately belonged to him and was unconnected with the alleged crime or unlawful activity. 7. In the present case, though the appellant has been acquitted of the charges, there is no material on record to show that he made any effort during trial or even in appeal to establish ownership or lawful source of the amount of ₹36,000/-. The appellant has not filed any application, nor has he led any evidence to demonstrate the legitimate origin of the said money. 4 8. The trial Court, after detailed consideration of the material available on record, particularly the nature of allegations involving confidential circulation of Naxalite ideology and circumstances under which the amount was recovered, rightly concluded that the said amount appeared to be connected to suspicious activities. Hence, the trial court was justified in invoking its powers to confiscate the amount. Furthermore, confiscation proceedings are distinct and independent of conviction, and such powers can be exercised when the trial court finds that the property seized is not convincingly shown to be untainted or lawfully held. In absence of any credible explanation or proof from the appellant as to the lawful origin or ownership of the seized amount, this Court does not find any error or illegality in the findings of the trial Court directing confiscation of the amount. 9. Accordingly, this Court is of the considered opinion that the appeal is devoid of merit and does not warrant interference. 10. The appeal, being devoid of merit, is hereby dismissed. The order of confiscation of ₹36,000/- passed by the learned Special Judge (NIA Act), Bilaspur (C.G.) in paragraph 42 of the judgment dated 13.08.2024 in Special Case (NIA) No. 06/2023 is affirmed. Sd/- Sd/- (Bibhu Datta Guru) (Ramesh Sinha) Judge Chief Justice Rahul/Gowri