Cash Seized During Crimial Proceedings - Interim Custody of Seized Cash Can Not Be Given
Determination to be made after consideration of claims and evidence of all parties during trial - Interim release of cash premature and unjustified
In a significant ruling, the Supreme Court of India has set aside the Gujarat High Court's decision to grant interim custody of Rs. 50,00,000, seized during criminal proceedings, to a respondent claiming ownership. The judgment, delivered on September 18, 2025, by Justices Sanjay Karol and Prashant Kumar Mishra, underscores the importance of evaluating all stakeholder claims and evidence before determining ownership of seized property.
The case, titled Rajput Vijaysinh Natwarsinh v. State of Gujarat, involves allegations of cheating and breach of trust against the appellant, Rajput Vijaysinh Natwarsinh, who operated a proprietary firm, Jay Gopal Trading Company. The firm was accused of failing to pay dues amounting to Rs. 3,49,07,073/- to various merchants, including the complainant, Chiragkumar Dilipbhai Natwarlal Modi. The police investigation resulted in a chargesheet under Sections 406, 420, and 120-B of the Indian Penal Code, 1860.
Respondent No. 2, who claimed ownership of the seized cash, had approached the Additional Chief Judicial Magistrate and the Additional Sessions Judge seeking its release, arguing that the amount was due for goods sold through his concern, Bhadrakali Tobacco. Both lower courts, however, denied the request, citing the need to consider claims from all affected parties and the lack of conclusive evidence establishing direct ownership at the interim stage.
Contrarily, the Gujarat High Court, referencing the Supreme Court's judgment in Sunderbhai Ambalal Desai v. State of Gujarat, allowed the interim release of the cash, asserting that no prejudice would be caused to the prosecution. The High Court's decision was based on the respondent's documentation showing alleged dues owed by the appellant's firm.
The Supreme Court, however, emphasized that the principles laid out in the Sunderbhai case were not adequately applied in the context of this specific dispute. The apex court noted that the matching amount owed to the respondent does not establish his sole claim over the seized cash, as it could be part of other transactions involving different parties. The determination of rightful ownership requires a thorough examination of evidence and claims during trial.
Restoring the orders of the lower courts, the Supreme Court has directed that the disputed cash be deposited with the trial court for safekeeping until the trial concludes. The judgment highlights the necessity of a detailed inquiry and evaluation of evidence in resolving ownership disputes involving seized property in criminal proceedings.
This decision sets a precedent in handling interim custody of case property in criminal trials, reinforcing the judiciary's role in ensuring justice by adhering to procedural rigor and comprehensive evidence assessment.
Rajput Vijaysinh Natwarsinh v. State of Gujarat, (SC) : Law Finder Doc Id # 2780893
