The Supreme Court held that the release of case property (cash) under Section 451 CrPC was premature. The ownership of seized money, being the proceeds of alleged crime with multiple claimants, cannot be determined conclusively at an interim stage but must be adjudicated after a full trial upon consideration of all evidence.
Facts Of The Case:
The case originated from an FIR (CR No. 11206078220159 of 2022) alleging that the appellant-accused, through his proprietary firm Jay Gopal Trading Company, committed cheating and criminal breach of trust against a complainant and other merchants in transactions involving castor seeds. During the investigation, the police seized cash amounting to Rs. 50,00,000. Respondent No. 2, another merchant claiming the seized cash was for goods he sold to the appellant’s firm, filed an application for its release, producing a bill, audit report, and ledger account as evidence. The Trial Court and the Revisional Court both rejected his application, reasoning that the cash was proceeds of the alleged crime with a lengthy list of victims, and its true ownership was a matter of evidence to be decided during the trial. However, the High Court allowed Respondent No. 2’s petition, ordering the release of the cash to him upon furnishing a personal bond. Challenging this order, the appellant-accused appealed to the Supreme Court, which set aside the High Court’s decision, restoring the orders of the lower courts and directing the seized money to be deposited with the Trial Court for a final determination upon evidence.
Procedural History:
The procedural history of this case began with the filing of an application by Respondent No. 2 before the Additional Chief Judicial Magistrate, Unjha, seeking the release of the seized cash. This application was rejected. Respondent No. 2 then filed a criminal revision application under Section 397 of the Code of Criminal Procedure before the Additional Sessions Judge, Mahesana, which was likewise dismissed. Subsequently, Respondent No. 2 approached the High Court of Gujarat under Articles 226 and 227 of the Constitution of India. The High Court allowed the petition, quashed the lower courts’ orders, and directed the release of the cash. Aggrieved by this decision, the appellant-accused filed a Special Leave Petition before the Supreme Court, which granted leave, heard the appeal, and ultimately set aside the High Court’s judgment, thereby restoring the orders of the Magistral and Revisional Courts.
READ ALSO:Supreme Court Rejects “Cryptic” Acquittal, Orders Fresh Hearing in 2002 Murder Case
Court Observation:
The Supreme Court observed that while the High Court correctly referenced the precedent in Sunderbhai Ambalal Desai v. State of Gujarat regarding the interim custody of property, it erred in its application to the present facts. The Court emphasized that the seized cash was not merely case property but was alleged to be the “proceeds of crime” with a lengthy list of alleged victims. It held that the ownership of such money, which is the very subject matter of the controversy involving charges of cheating and breach of trust against multiple parties, cannot be conclusively established at an interim stage. The release of the muddamal was deemed premature and unjustified, as the appropriate ownership can only be determined after a full trial upon consideration of all evidence and the claims of all potential victims.
Final Decision & Judgement:
The Supreme Court allowed the appeal and set aside the judgment of the High Court of Gujarat. It restored the orders of the lower courts, which had refused to release the seized cash. The Court directed that the amount, which had been withdrawn by the private respondent pursuant to the High Court’s order, be deposited with the Registry of the Supreme Court and then transferred to the custody of the concerned Trial Court. The final decision on the ownership of the seized money was to be determined only after the conclusion of the trial and upon consideration of all evidence.
Case Details:
Case Title: Rajput Vijaysinh Natwarsinh Versus State of Gujarat & Ors. Citation: 2025 INSC 1129 Criminal Appeal No.:(Arising out of SLP(Criminal) No.3179 of 2025) Date of Judgement: 18th September 2025 Judges/Justice Name: Justice Sanjay Karol and Justice Prashant Kumar Mishra
Download The Judgement Here