Seized Jewellery Can't Be Retained Indefinitely By Police In Absence Of Any Complainant: MP High Court

The Madhya Pradesh High Court, on Tuesday (November 18), held that jewellery seized from a man accused of theft, with prima facie verified bills, cannot be kept in the custody of the police indefinitely in anticipation that the unidentified complainant would come forward to claim rightful possession. The petition was filed by the man accused of theft, challenging the order of the Sessions Court dismissing his application for the release of the seized jewellery. According to the facts, Sub Inspector reported to the Boda Police Station that during a raid conducted at the petitioner's and one Ravi's house for theft (Section 305) and house trespassing (Section 331) of the BNS, gold and silver jewellery articles were recovered. He further informed that there were no bills or documents to prove willful possession. Though the petitioner provided verified bills of the seized jewellery, the Investigating Officer suspected that no regular bills or carbon copies were available with the jewellers. Hence, a final report was submitted on completion of the investigation. Counsel for the petitioner contended that no person has claimed ownership of the seized jewellery articles. It was submitted that for constituting the offences of misappropriation of property and of stolen property, there must be a rightful owner seeking possession of the property alleged to be misappropriated. Notably, the Investigating Officer was at a loss for explanation regarding the rightful owner of the property, stating that the complainant, who alleged that the seized jewellery was stolen, could not be traced. This aspect was not considered by the Sessions Court. Thereafter, the police sought verification of the bills from the concerned jewellers. However, the verification report was also suspected by the investigating officer, which was accepted by the Sessions Court. The bench of Justice Sanjeev S Kalgaonkar observed; "The alleged jewellery articles were seized from the house of petitioner and the concerned jewellers have prima-facie verified the bills. The seized jewellery articles cannot be kept in the custody of police, indefinitely, in anticipation that the complainant would come forward to claim rightful possession of the seized jewellery articles. In absence of any complainant, the question of identification of the seized articles during trial would not arise". Relying on the case of Sunderbhai Ambalal Desai v. State of Gujarat [2002 10 SCC 283], the bench reiterated that there is no use in keeping gold or silver jewellery in police custody for years till the trial is over. Further, if the articles are required to be kept in police custody, the SHO, after preparing a proper panchnama, could keep such articles in a bank locker. The bench set aside the order of the Session Court, observing that it committed 'manifest impropriety and patent illegality in rejecting the application for the release of seized jewellery articles on Supurdagi'. Consequently, the court directed that the seized jewellery be released on Supurdagi in interim custody, subject to submission of an appropriate bond and surety bond to the satisfaction of the Trial Court. The case was dismissed. Case Title: Sonu v State [MCRC-48689-2025]Citation: 2025 LiveLaw (MP) 254For Applicant: Advocate Manish YadavFor State: Government Advocate Amit Rawal Click here to read/download the Order

Seized Jewellery Can't Be Retained Indefinitely By Police In Absence Of Any Complainant: MP High Court

Jayanti Pahwa

Tags