1 CGHC010178922014 2026:CGHC:30411 NAFR HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR CRA No. 467 of 2014 Reserved on 15/06/2026 Delivered on 17/07/2026 Lakshminarayan Soni @ Gudda Soni S/o Ramkishore Soni Aged About 41 Years R/o Gondpara, Subhash Nagar, Ps Kotwali, Civil and Revenue District Bilaspur (Chhattisgarh) ... Appellant(s) versus 1. State Of Chhattisgarh Through Sho, Ps Civil Line, Bilaspur, Distt. Bilaspur (Chhattisgarh) 2. Prakash Motwani S/o. Late Radha Kishan Motwani, Aged about 45 years,R/o. Minocha Colony, House No. A/10, Police Station Civil Lines, District Bilaspur (CG) 3. Jaya Motwani W/o. Prakash Motwani, aged about 43 years, R/o. Minocha Colony, House No. A/10, Police Station Civil Lines, District Bilaspur (CG) ... Respondent(s) For Appellant (s) : Mr. Abhipreet Bajpai, Advocate on behalf of Mr. Anurag Bajpai, Advocate For Respondent(s) : Mr. Sanjeev Pandey, Dy. AG For Respondent No. 2 and 3 : Mr. Amit Soni, Advocate on behalf of Mr. Sushil Sahu, Advocate SANTOSH KUMAR SHARMA Digitally signed by SANTOSH KUMAR SHARMA Date: 2026.07.17 16:50:21 +0530 2 Hon'ble Shri Justice Narendra Kumar Vyas CAV JUDGEMENT 1. This criminal appeal under Section 454 of Cr.P.C. has been filed against the order dated 20.02.2014 passed by 2nd Additional Sessions Judge to the Court of 1st Additional Sessions Judge, Bilaspur (CG) in Sessions Case No. 161 of 2013, whereby learned trial Court has allowed the application filed under Section 451 CrPC by respondent No. 2 and 3 and directed to deliver the entire golden ornaments to the victim/ Respondent No.2 and 3 subject to order and direction of the Appellate Court, if the appeal is filed. The learned trial Court has also rejected the objection taken by the appellant wherein he has claimed ownership of the ornaments seized in Sessions Trial No. 161 of 2013. 2. Earlier the revision petition bearing Criminal Revision Petition No. 304 of 2014 was filed by the appellant which was dismissed as withdrawn with liberty to prefer an appeal before this Court on 29.04.2014. 3. Facts of the case, in brief, are that;- (A) Criminal Case No. 313 of 2010 was initiated against the accused/appellant for commission of offence under Section 395 IPC on the complaint of the victim/ Respondent No.2 and 3 alleging that on 17.05.2010 at about 3 AM, 9-10 persons committed dacoity in the house of victim Prakash Motwani on the point of knife, club and looted cash amount of Rs. 10,000/- along with silver and gold ornaments from his wife namely Jaya Motwani and guests namely Smt. Deepika Motwani, 3 Ku. Sapna Kunjwani and Amol Kunjwani. On the basis of complaint, FIR (Ex.P-13) was registered in Police Station Civil Line-Bilaspur. (B) During the course of investigation, memorandum statement of the accused persons were recorded under Section 27 of the Evidence Act and on the basis of memorandum statements, 35 tola gold and cash a sum of Rs. 10,000/- were seized vide Ex.P-1, Ex.P-5, Ex.P-6, Ex.P-7. The accused were arrested vide Ex.P-8, Ex.P-9 and Ex. P-10. Statements of appellant and other co-accused were recorded under Section 313 CrPC wherein the appellant has taken stand that he has been falsely implicated because of dispute with the police personnel of Cyber Cell, subsequently strike was taken place and for this reason the Police personnel are having enmity with the appellant and Police Personnel have taken these ornaments his shop. (C) Learned trial Court vide its judgment dated 20.02.2014 has acquitted the appellant and other co-accused and while acquitting the accused with regard to seized gold ornaments it has recorded its finding in paragraph 29 and 30 that other co-accused Deepak Bardi and Borakya Pardi have not claimed ownership over the gold ornaments. It has also held that since the victims/ respondent No.2 and 3 have submitted description of seized property along with photocopy of bills, therefore, the property was directed to be handed over to them subject to order of Appellate Court. Being aggrieved with this order to the extent that the trial Court has directed to hand over the property involved in the Crime 4 in question the appellant has prefer this appeal claiming ownership on the seized gold items. 4. Learned counsel for the appellant, Mr. Abhipreet Bajpai would submit that the impugned order passed by the learned trial Court is perverse, illegal and contrary to the law. He would further submit that after conclusion of the trial even if the accused were acquitted, the silver and gold ornaments ought to have been released in his favour as it was property of the appellant which was taken out by the Police from his shop as per statement recorded under Section 313 CrPC, therefore, at the conclusion of the trial an order to delivery of the ornaments to the victim is not in accordance with the law and would pray for quashing of the order and also prayed for handing over the property seized property to him. 5. Learned counsel for the respondent No.2 and 3 Mr. Amit Soni would submit that the impugned order passed by the trial Court is legal, justified and the respondent No. 2 and 3 are claiming right over the seized property as they are the real owner of the property as the dacoity was committed in their house and looted silver and gold ornaments from their house. He would further submit that from perusal of para No. 29 of the judgment wherein appellant Deepak Pardhi and Borakiya Pardhi did not make any claim over the property and suggestion was given to the appellant at the time of cross examination, in which he has denied that the property was seized from him. He would further submit that the victims have submitted bills i.e. document of purchase of ornaments 5 which demonstrate that they are the ownership of the property; as such they are entitled to get possession of the property under Section 451 CrPC and would pray for dismissal of the appeal. 6. On the other hand learned counsel for the State supporting the judgment of the trial Court would submit that learned trial Court declining handing over of the seized property in favour of the appellant is legal, justified and which does not warrant interference by this Court. He would further submit that the appellant has annexed cash memo which cannot be considered at the appellate stage, as its genuineness has to be ascertained during course of trial, as such the documents filed by the appellant for the first time in this appeal is not relevant to decide the ownership of the seized gold ornaments and would pray for rejection of the appeal. To substantiate his submission, he referred to the judgment of High Court of Rajasthan in the case of Kurban Ali vs. State of Rajasthan reported in 1991 CRLJ 3065 (Raj.) 7. I have heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the records. 8. From the submission made by the counsel for the parties, the point merged for determination by this Court is whether the order passed by the Sessions Court declining claim of the appellant and directing to hand over the property to the victim/ respondent No. 2 and 3 on supurdnama is legal, justified or not ? 9. For better understanding the point of determination, it is expedient for this Court to extract Sections 451 CrPC. 6 Section 451 CrPC - Order for custody and disposal of property pending trial in certain cases:-When any property is produced before any Criminal Court during an inquiry or trial, the Court may make such order as it thinks fit for the proper custody of such property pending the conclusion of the inquiry or trial, and, if the property is subject to speedy and natural decay, or if it is otherwise expedient so to do, the Court may, after recording such evidence as it thinks necessary, order it to be sold or otherwise disposed of. Explanation- For the purposes of this section, “property” includes - (a) property of any kind or document which is produced before the Court or which is in its custody. (b) any property regarding which an offence appears to have been committed or which appears to have been used for the commission of any offence. Section 452 CrPC Order for disposal of property at conclusion of trial. (1) When an inquiry or trial in any Criminal Court is concluded, the Court may make such order as it thinks fit for the disposal, by destruction, confiscation or delivery to any person claiming to be entitled to possession thereof or otherwise, of any property or document produced before it or in its custody, or regarding which any offence appears to have been committed, or which has been used for the commission of any offence. 2) An order may be made under sub-section (1) for the delivery of any property to any person claiming to be entitled to the possession thereof, without any condition or on condition that he executes a bond, with or without sureties, to the satisfaction of the Court, engaging to restore such property to the Court if the order made under sub-section (1) is modified or set aside on appeal or revision. (3) A Court of Session may, instead of itself making an order under sub-section (1), direct the property to be delivered to the Chief Judicial Magistrate, who shall thereupon deal with it in the manner provided in Sections 457, 458 and 459. (4) Except where the property is livestock or is subject to speedy and natural decay, or where a bond has been executed in pursuance of sub-section (2), an order made under sub- section (1) shall not be carried out for two months, or when an appeal is presented, until such appeal has been disposed of. (5) In this section, the term "property" includes, in the case of property regarding which an offence appears to have been committed, not only such property as has been originally in the possession or under the control of any party, but also any property into or for which the same may have been converted 7 or exchanged, and anything acquired by such conversion or exchange, whether immediately or otherwise. 10. From the above stated provisions of CrPC, it is quite vivid, that proceeding under Section 451 and 452 works in different sphere as Section 451 CrPC operates for custody and disposal of the property pending trial in certain cases whereas Section 452 CrPC operate for disposal of the property at conclusion of the trial, as such while dealing with the application during the trial the person who intends to claim the property has to prove his claim by strong and cogent evidence. 11. 11. From the records of Sessions Trial No. 161 of 2013, it is quite vivid, that the victim/ Respondent No. 2 and 3 have submitted photocopy of the bills regarding purchase by them and from perusal of list of ornaments (Ex.P-13) which were looted at the time of incident on 17.05.2010 and evidence of Respondent No. 2 and 3 and other witnesses recorded before learned trial Court in S.T. No. 161 of 2013 as well as the statement of PW-10 J.R. Baghel investigating Officer in-charge Police Station who has Exhibited seizure memo of looted property from Ex.P-2 to Ex.P-7 it is quite vivid that the gold ornaments were looted in the residence of Respondent No. 2 and 3. Further considering the fact that the accused including the appellant were examined under Section 313 CrPC before the Court wherein they have has denied all the incriminating circumstances put to them and has taken plea of false implication. Appellant Laxmi Narayan in his statement regarding description of the property while answering question Nos. 15, 16, 21, 22, 26 as well as in question No. 36 to 45 has denied seizure memo and taken plea of false 8 implication. Thus nothing has been brought on record by the appellant to claim ownership on the seized property. In absence of any cogent document on record to claim title, the order impugned cannot be found faulty or requires interference by this Court. 12. It is well settled legal position that as per Section 27 of the Evidence Act, when any fact is deposed to as discover in consequence of information received from a person accused of any offence, in the custody of a police officer, so much of such information whether it amounts to a confession or not, as relates distinctly to the fact thereby discovered, may be proved. Section 27 of the Evidence Act, has recently come up for consideration before the Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of Neelu @ Nilesh Kosti vs. State of Madhya Pradesh reported in 2026 INSC 173 wherein the Hon’ble Supreme Court has held in paragraph 22 as under:- 22) The aforesaid legal position was comprehensively reiterated and elaborate d upon by this Court in Bodhraj Alias Bodha and Others vs. State of Jammu and Kashmir 2002 (8) SCC 45, wherein the question of whether evidence relating to recovery is sufficient to fasten guilt on the accused was examined at length. This Court held that for evidence under Section 27 to be admissible, the information must emanate from an accused who is in police custody. The Court elucidated that the basic idea embedded in Section 27 is the doctrine of confirmation by subsequent events when a fact is discovered on the strength of information obtained from a prisoner, such discovery serves as a guarantee of the truthfulness of the information supplied. The Court further observed that whether the information is confessional or non-inculpatory in nature, if it results in the discovery of a fact, it becomes reliable information. Significantly, it was held that the mere recovery of an object does not constitute the discovery of fact envisaged in the section. Relying on the Privy Council's decision in Pulukuri Kottayya and Others vs. King Emperor AIR 1947 PC 67, the Court held that the "fact discovered" embraces not merely the object recovered, but the place from which the object was produced and the knowledge of 9 the accused as to its existence, and that the information given must relate distinctly to that effect. 13. Considering the aforesaid legal position and the facts of the case, the information given by the other co-accused Deepak Pardi in the police custody regarding silver and gold ornaments distinctly related to the fact discovered under Section 27 of the Evidence Act wherein he has stated that they have committed dacoity in the house of Respondent No. 2 and 3 and looted gold ornaments though the seizure witnesses have not supported the case of the prosecution, but they have admitted their signature in the memorandum statement as well as in the seizure memo. From the said statement, it is quite vivid, that recovery of gold and silver ornaments from the precise location could only have been made on the basis of information furnished by someone who had personal knowledge about it. Thus it cannot be held that the property was seized from the accused/appellant as the memorandum statement of the other co-accused for proceeding under Section 451 CrPC is piece of evidence for the purpose of considering and deciding who is the best person entitle to possession of the property. The Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of Mahesh Kumar vs. State of Rajasthan reported in 1990 supp SCC 541 has held that leading to the discovery by the accused can be made use of for purpose of and the disposal of property under Section 451 of the Code. The Hon’ble Supreme Court has held as under:- 2. In the facts and circumstances of the present case, we are satisfied that the direction made by the learned Single Judge of the Rajasthan High Court for the forfeiture of the amount of Rs 20,000 (Rupees twenty thousand) to the State is wholly unwarranted. It is 10 now accepted principle that the confessional part of the statement made by the accused leading to discovery within the meaning of Section 27 of the Evidence Act, 1872 or Section 162 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 can be made use of for purpose of and the disposal of property under Section 452 of the Code. There is a long line of decisions laying down the principle and we would refer to only a few of them. 3. In Queen Empress v. Tribhovan Manekchand a Division Bench of the Bombay High Court laid down that the statement made to the police by the accused persons as to the ownership of property which was the subject matter of the proceedings against them although inadmissible as evidence against them at the trial for the offence with which they were charged, were admissible as evidence with regard to the ownership of the property in an enquiry held by the Criminal Procedure Code. The same view was reiterated in Pohlu v. Emperor where it was pointed out that though there is a bar in Section 25 of the Evidence Act, or in Section 162 CrPC for being made use of as evidence against the accused, this statement could be made use of in an enquiry under Section 517 CrPC when determining the question of return of property. These two decisions have been followed by the Rajasthan High Court in Dhanraj Baldeokishan v. State and the Mysore High Court in Veerabhadrappa v. Govinda. In the present case, the amount in question was seized from the accused in pursuance of statements made by them under Section 27 of the Evidence Act. The High Court as well as the courts below have found the property to be the subject of theft and the acquittal of the accused is upon benefit of doubt. The accused persons disclaimed the stolen property and there is no reason why the same should not be returned to the owner i.e. the complainant to whom it belongs. 14. The High Court of Madhya Pradesh in the case Kamarlal and another vs. State of M.P. and another reported in 1992 SCC Online M.P. 246 has held as under:- 9. The learned counsel appearing on behalf of the complainant-accused has placed reliance on a decision of this court of Babulal v. State of M.P (1989 C.Cr.J 11) wherein it has been observed that the power of the criminal court under S. 452, Cr.P.C. to make an order for the disposal of the property at the conclusion of the trial is summary in nature and on order so made does not adjudicate upon the civil rights of the parties and the persons aggrieved are free to file a civil suit for enforcement off their rights in the property and that the provisions under the law do not bar statement of the accused 11 made to the police officer during investigation being used to determine the person to whom custody of the property could be delivered. (10.) In the instant case, the argument of the learned counsel for the petitioners-Accused is that that the property in dispute belongs to the Accused persons and the police seized the property from the Accused persons and implanted the same for the purpose of seizure in pursuance of memorandum under S. 27 of the Evidence Act. This argument in my opinion, has no legs to stand. If the police had seized the property belonging to the Accused persons from them, it was but natural that they would have made complaint of such highhandedness on the part of police at some forum. It was also expected in that circumstances that the Accused persons would, from the very outset make a claim to the property as belonging to them but they advisedly kept silent for some time even after the complainant made an application under S. 452 of the Cr. P.C. The Accused persons also denied any seizure of the property from them in the examination of the Accused. In these circumstances, no claim has been established of the Accused over the property which was the subject matter of the alleged offence of theft. In fact, the Accused persons have been acquitted because they were not found to be in possession of the property which was allegedly seized from them. Moreover, as observed in the case of Babulal (supra) the disposal of property u/S. 452, Cr. P.C. is summary in nature and subject to proper adjudication of civil rights of the parties in a civil suit by the person aggrieved. In view of the discussions aforesaid, I do not find any force in this revision, which is, therefore, dismissed. Revision dismissed. 15. Similar views have also been taken by the High Court of Kerla in the case of Thampi Chettiar Arjunan Chettiar vs. State and another reported in 1995 Criminal Law General 1185, High Court of Bombay in the case reported in 2007 SCC Online Bombay 1214 and Allahabad High Court also in the case of Vishnu Kumar Agrawal vs. State of U.P. and others reported in 2022 SCC Online All 1766. 12 16. In view of above stated facts and law on the subject, I am of the view that the learned Sessions Court has not committed any illegality in passing the order dated 20.02.2014 in Session Case No. 161 of 2013 rejecting the oral objection of the appellant to hand over the stolen property since the appellant could not file any document to prove his ownership over the aforesaid ornaments, which were allegedly recovered by the police on the memorandum statements of other co-accused. Accordingly, the appeal filed by the appellant deserves to be dismissed and it is dismissed. Sd/- (Narendra Kumar Vyas) Judge santosh