# RAM PARKASH SHARMA v. STATE OF HARYANA

- **Citation:** [1978] 3 S.C.R. 691
- **Court:** Supreme Court of India
- **Decided:** 1978-04-18
- **Case number:** Criminal Appeal No. 184 of 1978
- **Bench:** V. R. Krishna Iyer, V. D. TuLZAPURKAR
- **Source:** https://unisonlegal.in/judgment/supreme-court-of-india/ram-parkash-sharma-v-state-of-haryana-7417
- **Pages:** 3

## Headnote

ll
Criniinal Procedure Code, (Act II of 1974), 1973~ Section 437-Procedure
upon seizure of p1·operty, by the Police-Seizure renorted' to the Special Judge,
but not yet produced before the Court-Power of the Court to release the
property.
A considerable sum of money was recovered by the Police from the appellant and seized in connection with an offence registered against an accused
nerson, namely, Sri Bansi Lal.
An application made under Section 457 of
C
the Criminal Procedure Code was rejected Dy the Courts below holding that
the Special Jqdge had no power to release the seized property.
Allowing the appeal by special leave, the Court,
HELD : 1. Chapter 34 of the Criminal Procedure Code deals with disposal
of property.
There is a trichotomy in the sense that where property has been
seized by the Police, but not produced before the Court, the power to dispose
it of is covered by section 457. Where property has been seized and/or other~. I}
wise produced before the CO'lrt, the manner to dispose of such property is
governed by Sec. 451. If thci .question of disposal arises after the enquiry or
trial in any criminal court is concluded, the disposal of the property involved
in the case is governed by Sec. 452.
The situation is squarely covered by s.
457 Cr!. Procedure Code. [692 B-C, EI
2. (a) The fact that the Court has power to dispose of property seized by
the police but not yet produced before the Court does not mean that the Special
Judge must always release such property to the person from whom the property
E'
has been recovered, specially when the stage of the case is in suspicion, the
investigation is not over and charge-sheet has not yet been laid.
The Court
has to be circumspect in-such a situation before releasing the property.
[692 E-Fl
(b) \Vhenever the claimant asks for the property back, it dOes not mean
that he should be given back the said property. That has to be decided on its
own merits in each case and the discretion of the Court has to be exerciSed
after due consideration of the interests of justice
including the
prospective
It
necessity of the production of these seized articles at the time of the trial.
If the release of the property seized will, in any manner, affect or prejudice
the course of justice at the time of the trial, it will be a vlise di'scretion to reject
the claim for return. [692 F-G]
Smt. Ba;ava Kon1 Dya1nan Gond Patil v. State of A1)•;ore, and Ors., (C.A.
243/71 dt. 19-4-77). [1977] 4 S.C.C. 368, referred to.
[The Court directed the Special Judge to pass appropriate orders u/s 457
G:
Crl. Procedure Code expeditiously]

## Text

) -
691
RAM PARKASH SHARMA
v.
STATE OF HARYANA
April 18, 1978
[V. R. KRISHNA IYER AND V. D. TuLZAPURKAR, JJ.]
ll
Criniinal Procedure Code, (Act II of 1974), 1973~ Section 437-Procedure
upon seizure of p1·operty, by the Police-Seizure renorted' to the Special Judge,
but not yet produced before the Court-Power of the Court to release the
property.
A considerable sum of money was recovered by the Police from the appellant and seized in connection with an offence registered against an accused
nerson, namely, Sri Bansi Lal.
An application made under Section 457 of
C
the Criminal Procedure Code was rejected Dy the Courts below holding that
the Special Jqdge had no power to release the seized property.
Allowing the appeal by special leave, the Court,
HELD : 1. Chapter 34 of the Criminal Procedure Code deals with disposal
of property.
There is a trichotomy in the sense that where property has been
seized by the Police, but not produced before the Court, the power to dispose
it of is covered by section 457. Where property has been seized and/or other~. I}
wise produced before the CO'lrt, the manner to dispose of such property is
governed by Sec. 451. If thci .question of disposal arises after the enquiry or
trial in any criminal court is concluded, the disposal of the property involved
in the case is governed by Sec. 452.
The situation is squarely covered by s.
457 Cr!. Procedure Code. [692 B-C, EI
2. (a) The fact that the Court has power to dispose of property seized by
the police but not yet produced before the Court does not mean that the Special
Judge must always release such property to the person from whom the property
E'
has been recovered, specially when the stage of the case is in suspicion, the
investigation is not over and charge-sheet has not yet been laid.
The Court
has to be circumspect in-such a situation before releasing the property.
[692 E-Fl
(b) \Vhenever the claimant asks for the property back, it dOes not mean
that he should be given back the said property. That has to be decided on its
own merits in each case and the discretion of the Court has to be exerciSed
after due consideration of the interests of justice
including the
prospective
It
necessity of the production of these seized articles at the time of the trial.
If the release of the property seized will, in any manner, affect or prejudice
the course of justice at the time of the trial, it will be a vlise di'scretion to reject
the claim for return. [692 F-G]
Smt. Ba;ava Kon1 Dya1nan Gond Patil v. State of A1)•;ore, and Ors., (C.A.
243/71 dt. 19-4-77). [1977] 4 S.C.C. 368, referred to.
[The Court directed the Special Judge to pass appropriate orders u/s 457
G:
Crl. Procedure Code expeditiously]
CRIMINAL APPELLATE JURISDICTION: Criminal Appeal No. 184
of 1978.
Appeal by Special Leave from the Judgment and
Order dated
7-10-77 of the Punjab & Haryana High Court in Criminal Misc. No.
4623-M of 1977.
M. C. Bhandare, (Mrs.) S. Bhandare, (Mi.;;:) M. Poduvall and A·.
N. Karkhanis for the Appellant.
A
B
c
D
E
F
G
H
692
SUPREME COURT REPORTS
[1978] 3 S.C.R.
H. S. Marwah and M. N. Shroff for the Respondent.
The Order of the Court was delivered by
KRISHNA IYER, J. Leave granted.
The short point that arises in this appeal is as to whether the Criminal Court has power to release property seized by the police from a
person and reported to the Special Judge, but not yet produced before
the Court. We think the court has such power and that seems to be
the scheme of the Code itself.
Chapter 34 of the Criminal Procedure Code deals with disposal of
property. There is a trichotomy in the sense that where property has
been seized by the police, but not produced before the court, the power
to dispose it of is covered by section 457.
Where property has been
seized and/ or otherwise produced before the court, the manner to
dispose of such property is governed by sec. 451. If the question of
disposal ·arises after the enquiry or trial in any criminal court is conciuded, the disposal of the property involved in the case is governed
by sec. 452. We need not go elaborately into the implications of each
provision since we are not called upon to do so in the present case.
Section 457 covers the facts of the present case. The Police have
recovered a considerable sum of money from the appellant and the
money is stated to be seized in connection with an offence registered
against an accused person, namely, Shri Bansi
Lal.
Whether
the
appellant himself will be a witness or an accused is not possible to state
at the present moment according to the counsel for the State. Be that
as it may, the situation is squarely covered by sec. 457,
Cr.
P.C.
However, the fact that the court has power to dispose
of property
· seized by the police but not yet produced before the court does not
mean that the Special Judge must always release such property to the
person from whom the property bas been recovered, especially when
the stage of the case is in suspicion, the investigation is not over and
charge-sheet bas not yet been laid. The court bas to be circumspect in
such a situation before releasing the property.
While we reverse the
decision of the courts below that the Special Judge had no power to
release the seized property, we should not be taken to mean that whenever the claimant asks for the property back, be should be given back
the said property. That has to be decided on its own merits in each
case and the discretion of the court bas to be exercised after due consideration of the interests of justice including the prospective necessity
of the production of these seized articles at the time of the trial. If the
release of the property seized will, in any manner, affect or prejudice
the course of justice at the time of the trial, it will be a wise discretion
to reject the claim for return.
In the present case, counsel for the State is unable to state whether
in future prosecution may have to rely upon the currency notes in
specie 'seized from the appellant. It is quite on record that they may
be so reouired especially having regard to the circumstance that the
monies ,,;e stated by the prosecution to have been buried although the
~·
-
....
' -
•
•
..
...
•
,.
•
R. P. SHARMA v. HARYANA STATE (Krishna Iyer, !.)
6 93
appellant, in this Court, stoutly denies this allegation.
All that we
need do at the moment is to uphold the power of the court to release
the property and direct the Special Judge to hold an investigation into
the necessity for the notes seized to be retained with the poliC'e or in the
court for future use at the time of the inquiry or trial. If he is of the
opinion that the notes are so required, the property shall not be released. If, on the other hand, the notes are not needed in any manner in
the later stages of the inquiry or trial, it will be proper for the conrt
to release the property on the appellant furnishing adequate security.
Jn reaching the conclusion we have taken note of the decision of
this Court in Smt. Basava Kom Dyaman Gond v. State of Mysore and
others(')
Of course, the Police should not indefinitely keep property
A
B
in its custody nor need the court keep the property seized and produced
before it unduly long but this does not whittle down the need for the
C
court to be vigilant when an application is made for return of property
seized by the police as to the necessity of such property being required
in the future course of the trial.
Having regard to these circumstances, the court will pass appropriate orders under sec. 457, Cr. P. C. regarding the disposal of the
property seized by the police in this case. The Special Judge will dis--
D
pose of the matter expeditiously since considerable time has elapsed.
The appeal is disposed of accordingly .
S.R .
Appeal allowed.
(!) 1974 (4) s.c.c. 388.