This article is written by Avneet Kaur. It discusses various aspects of the case of Sunderbhai Ambalal v. State of Gujarat, a significant order of the Supreme Court wherein principles regarding the handling of valuable property in police custody during legal proceedings were enumerated. The article aims at discussing the landmark order in exhaustive depth. It also discusses the significance of the order in light of recent judgements. 

It has been published by Rachit Garg.

Introduction

When we talk about disposing of property from police custody, it implies the procedure of handling and managing property that has been seized by the police. This can have different meanings, such as returning the property to the owner, selling it, destroying it, or taking it into state custody. Suppose a person’s car is seized by the police and kept in its custody until the pendency of the trial, and when the legal proceeding is complete, what is left is a piece of junk to be returned to its owner. This results in a loss to the owner, and in order to prevent such situations, several procedural laws have been incorporated. 

The case of Sunderbhai Ambalal Desai v. State of Gujarat (2002) also deals with the question of retention of different kinds of property in police custody, in respect of which an offence has been committed or which is likely to be useful during an investigation or trial. Such retention of property at police stations results in loss to the rightful owner, depreciation in its value, and also burdens the court and the police. There is also the risk of misappropriation or police tampering with the property while it is in custody, as is contended in this case. Though several provisions exist for dealing with such related issues, their implementation remains unequivocal. The main idea of the article is to give a detailed legal analysis of the different provisions dealing with property disposal and the role of courts in facilitating the same. 

Details of Sunderbhai Ambalal Desai & Ors. v. State of Gujarat (2002)

1. Name of the case: Sunderbhai Ambalal Desai & Ors. v. State of Gujarat 
2. Date of order: 01. 10. 2002
3. Parties to the case
   1. Petitioners: Sunderbhai Ambalal Desai & Ors.
   2. Respondent: State of Gujarat 
4. Equivalent citations: AIR 2003 SC 638, 2002 (9) SCALE 153, (2002) 10 SCC 283, [2002] SUPP 3 SCR 39, 2003 (1) UJ 590.
5. Type of the case: Special Leave Petition 
6. Court: Supreme Court of India
7. Statutes involved: Indian Penal Code 1860, Criminal Procedure Code 1973
8. Bench: Justice M.B. Shah and Justice D.M. Dharamadhikari

Facts of Sunderbhai Ambalal Desai & Ors. v. State of Gujarat (2002)

A First Information Report (FIR) was filed against some personnel of the Gujarat police by the Assistant Commissioner of Police, “D” Division, Surat, alleging that the accused were involved in the commission of offences under Sections 420, 429, 465, 468, 477-A, and 144 of the Indian Penal Code, 1860 (hereinafter mentioned as “IPC”). The First Information Report stated that the accused were involved in the misappropriation of property that was entrusted to police custody, the illegal replacement of articles, meddling with police records, and unlawfully disposing of or dealing with such property. They were accused of mishandling valuable articles such as money, gold, and vehicles and replacing them with other counterfeit articles. The Trial Court granted remand to the accused. The High Court of Gujarat later rejected the applications in response to the order of the Trial Court.

Thereon, two Special Leave Petitions were filed by the accused police personnel before the Supreme Court.

Issues raised in Sunderbhai Ambalal Desai & Ors. v. State of Gujarat (2002)

• Whether there is proper implementation of rules regarding the handling of property in police custody as given under Section 451 and 457 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 (hereinafter mentioned as “CrPC”)
• Whether valuable property and articles should be detained in police custody beyond necessity.
• Whether the custody of seized articles should be with the police or the person entitled to their possession. 

Arguments of the parties in Sunderbhai Ambalal Desai v. State of Gujarat (2002) 

Petitioners

• The counsel on behalf of the petitioners argued that the names of the police officers were not mentioned in the FIR, and there was also no evidence of any preceding antecedents registered against them except for the present case. 
• It was argued that the application for remand of the petitioners was unjustified when they were granted anticipatory bail because it would defeat the objective of granting anticipatory bail and would also veto the guarantee of personal liberty. 
• The petitioners put forward that there was no conclusive evidence regarding the misappropriation of property and commission of other offences as mentioned in the FIR and that any damage caused to the property while in police custody was because of a lack of orders and directions to be given by the concerned Magistrate in dealing with such property. 
• The counsel also contended that releasing property and vehicles in police custody to owners would unfold a risk of extensive litigation before the Court, thereby increasing its burden.

Respondent

• The counsel on behalf of the respondent submitted that the property and articles kept in police stations are not in compliance with the provisions mentioned in such regard under the CrPC. This exposes the state exchequer and the citizens whose articles are kept in custody to possible risk or loss.  
• The respondents submitted that the object of keeping articles in police stations is to ensure their safe custody; however, the non-adherence to provisions and long durations of trials allow the police officers to misappropriate the property. When property is kept in police custody, there is entrustment of that property, which is to be kept safe and not misappropriated for its own use in order to facilitate the return of the articles.
• It was also contended that there is non-compliance with the provisions of the Gujarat Police Act, 1951, for the disposal and safekeeping of property in police custody and maintaining police records for the same. 
• The respondents contended that police stations are overburdened with custody of property and articles, which may lead to tampering with police records, and the property also starts depreciating over time. To prevent such circumstances, it must be ensured that provisions in this regard, such as Section 451 of the CrPC, are duly implemented. 
• The respondents argued that valuable property and articles should be released to the rightful owner after they have already been produced before the Court in the concerned investigation or trial. 
• The counsel also referred to Sections 451 and 457 of the CrPC, 1973, dealing with the question of custody and disposal of property and the procedure to be followed by police with regard to seized property, respectively. These provisions give wide powers to pass appropriate orders. The counsel contended that, despite these powers, proper orders are not passed by the court.

Legal provisions involved in Sunderbhai Ambalal Desai v. State of Gujarat (2002)

The key legal aspects in this case revolve around the handling of property in police custody, which can be highlighted through the following provisions:

Section 451 CrPC

It is a significant provision that deals with the power of the police and the court to seize and retain property if there is reason to believe the property can be used as evidence or is necessary for production before the court in a legal proceeding. This section places wide discretion on the part of the concerned Magistrate to pass any order as it may deem fit for the proper custody of any property produced during a legal proceeding before a criminal court. The governing principle is that seized property should not be kept for any time longer than it is needed for a legal proceeding. This section empowers the Court to grant interim custody of the property to the rightful owner, whereas under Section 452, the order for disposal of property can be made only upon the conclusion of the investigation or trial. For the purpose of Section 452, it is necessary that there be an inquiry or trial before the Court and it should also be completed. If the offence has been compounded before the legal proceedings have commenced, Section 452 will not be attracted. 

Section 451 also empowers the Magistrate to order the property to be sold or disposed of after recording evidence if the property is of a perishable nature. This has also been discussed under Section 459, which deals with the power of the Magistrate to sell perishable property valued less than Rs 500. 

Section 457 CrPC

This section enumerates the procedure to be followed when seized property is not produced before the Magistrate during legal proceedings. In such a case, the property may be disposed of or delivered to the person entitled to its possession. The Court may order the property to be returned to the rightful owner or the person claiming its possession, on such conditions as it may deem fit. However, if the person entitled to possession is unknown, then the Magistrate may issue a proclamation specifying the property, thereby enabling the person entitled to establish his claim before the court within six months. 

Section 458 CrPC

The section deals with two situations: first, when a person fails to file a claim for the seized property within six months, and second, when the person having possession of the property fails to show that the property had been legally acquired by him. In such a situation, the Court may order the property to be at the disposal of the concerned state government. The court may also order the property to be sold by the government, and the proceeds from such a sale shall be dealt by the government as may be prescribed.  

Order in Sunderbhai Ambalal Desai v. State of Gujarat (2002)

The Court held that a speedier procedure needs to be evolved for the disposal of articles kept at police stations; in this regard, Section 451 should be exercised and implemented expeditiously. The Supreme Court held that this would result in achieving the objective of the provisions mentioned under the CrPC. The Court held that through proper implementation of Section 451 of the CrPC 1973, the burden upon the police stations and courts can be reduced. The Supreme Court, in the present case, laid down the following procedure to be followed by the police officials for custody of different kinds of property, such as valuable articles, money, vehicles, narcotics, etc., separately, which was discussed below. 

Valuable articles and currency notes

The Court accepted the contention of the respondents that keeping valuable property and articles such as gold and silver ornaments and money for years until the trial is over serves no use. The Magistrate should pass an appropriate order in respect of such property after recording evidence. The Court also set forth that a proper panchnama prepared before handing over possession of property can be used as a substitute for the production of property in the court as evidence. 

The Court also held that if articles belong to the person at whose house robbery, dacoity, or theft has been committed, then the property should be handed over after making a proper panchanama, taking photographs, and making a bond or security deposit to guarantee that the property should be produced before the Court when required during trial. The Court laid down the following guidelines for preparing a panchnama:

• The panchnama for the return of property should be prepared by the police officers with the same precautions as the panchnama for the seizure of property.
• In addition, photographs should be taken of the concerned articles. The claimant shall also pay a bond and security deposit to ensure that the articles are not altered, damaged, or destroyed.
• The photographs of the articles should be countersigned by the prosecution, the accused, and the claimant of the property.
• In respect of a vehicle, the production of a seizure report is sufficient before the Court, and there is no need to produce the vehicle.
• The Court can impose any other condition it deems fit in the interest of justice.

The Court held that there may arise a situation when the property is not handed over to the claimant as well as the complainant. In such a case, the court may direct the property to be kept in a bank locker. Similarly, when articles are in police custody, the station house officer can keep the articles in a bank locker after preparing a panchnama.

The court held that all seized property should be produced before the Magistrate within a week. The Magistrate may also entrust the investigating officer with the seized property for the purpose of investigation. However, the property shall not be kept for any longer than is needed for the purpose of investigation.

Vehicles

A number of seized vehicles are present at police stations for long periods of time, which leads to their decay and converts them into junk. The Court also held that seized vehicles should not be kept at a police station for a long period of time. It shall be returned after taking a bond and security deposit. However, if the claimant is unknown, then it can be auctioned by the court. If the vehicle is insured, then the insurance company shall be informed to take possession. If the company also fails to take possession, then the Court may order it to be disposed of by an order within six months of the production of the vehicle before the Court. However, before handing over possession of the vehicle, a proper panchnama should be prepared by the police with appropriate photographs. 

Narcotics and intoxicants

With regard to articles such as liquor and narcotic drugs, the court held that such articles should not be kept at police stations for a long time, but rather prompt action should be taken to dispose of them. A sample for identification should be taken and sent to the chemical analyzer to be used as evidence in court and to prevent the possibility of contention that the article that was seized was not the same. Larger quantities of such articles should not be kept at police stations. A proper panchnama should be prepared before disposing of such articles. 

The Court also held that if the property while in police custody is lost, damaged, or destroyed and there exists no prima facie evidence as to whether the state and its officers took due care and caution to protect it and ensure its safekeeping, then the Magistrate may order the payment of the value of the property. The court set forth that the Magistrate concerned with the supervision of the Registry of the High Court should oversee the implementation of Section 451 of the CrPC 1973 and ensure that seized articles are not kept for more than fifteen days to one month at the police station. The matter was adjourned by the court for three weeks. 

Rationale behind the judgement in Sunderbhai Ambalal Desai v. State of Gujarat (2002)

The rationale behind the Supreme Court’s order in the case of Sunderbhai Ambalal Desai v. State of Gujarat was based on the decision given in the case of Smt. Basaw Kom Dyanmangouda Patil v. State of Mysore and Anr. (1977), wherein it was held by the Karnataka High Court that the objective of different provisions of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 seems to revolve around the notion that, when a property is seized by the police in relation to an offence, it should not be retained by the Court or police for any time longer than is necessary for the legal proceedings. The Supreme Court referred to the observation of the Karnataka High Court and stated that retaining the property with the state until the trial is over not only defeats the use of such an article and causes loss to its owner but also places an additional responsibility on the state to ensure its safety and protection. The Court further observed that, since the act of property seizure by the police implies entrustment to the state or its officers, the ultimate intention is for the property to be returned to its owner or person entitled to its possession once the need to retain it does not exist. In order to ensure this, all seized property is required to be produced before the court. The Supreme Court further observed that, during the proceeding of any criminal case, the police have to act under the directions and orders of the Magistrate at every stage of investigation and trial. Therefore, it is apparent that the Court exercises comprehensive control over the actions of the police officers. Accordingly, it becomes the duty of the Court to take cognizance of such situations and pass appropriate orders to dispose of or deliver the property according to the law without any unnecessary delay. 

Critical analysis of Sunderbhai Ambalal v. State of Gujarat (2002)

The order of the Supreme Court in this case reiterates the flawed mechanism of the Indian legal system, reflected through well-devised but rarely implemented statutory provisions. The order did not lead to the creation of any new principle or rule; rather, it focused on the execution of already existing principles with regard to property seized by the police. Sections 451 and 457 of the CrPC specifically deal with such situations. However, despite the existence of wide powers and discretion that are conferred upon the judges and the Court, such powers are not duly exercised and proper orders are not passed in regard to the return, disposal, or delivery of property seized by the police. Apart from that, there exists the Gujarat Police Act, 1951, which also specifically deals with such situations and places responsibility upon the police officers to maintain proper records. However, all these provisions lack proper implementation and execution. The court in this case focused on passing appropriate orders and directions. However, in view of the current situation of an excessive judicial backlog, this would only add to the burden on the courts. 

Recent pronouncement of the Gujarat High Court 

Recently, in 2022, the Gujarat High Court, in the famous case of Rameshbhai Dhulabhai Katara v. State of Gujarat (2022), made a reference to the decision of the Supreme Court in the case of Sunderbhai Ambalal Desai v. State of Gujarat 2002. In the Rameshbhai Katara case, certain police personnel learned that a vehicle carrying large quantities of liquor was passing nearby. When confronted, the police officers found that the truck driver was carrying liquor without any permit or permission. Therefore, the vehicle and the liquor were seized in police custody. The Gujarat High Court relied on the order of the Supreme Court in the Sunderbhai case with regard to custody of seized vehicles and held that within six months of the production of the vehicle before the court, appropriate orders should be made to dispose of it or return it to the owner. Hence, the High Court ordered the vehicle to be released on the following conditions:

• The petitioner should pay a surety of an amount equivalent to that of the vehicle as listed in the panchnama. 
• An undertaking should be filed before the Trial Court stating that before the alienation or transfer of the concerned vehicle, permission from the concerned court will be obtained.
• Another undertaking should be filed stating that the vehicle will be produced as and when directed by the court.
• If any offence is committed by the petitioner subsequently, the vehicle will be confiscated. 

Conclusion

The case highlighted the plight of persons whose property had been seized for years of legal proceedings and the inaction on the part of courts and police officers to reinstate such persons with possession of their property. However, the law enables the courts to pass orders to deal with the disposal of seized property. 

In this particular case, the Court played a crucial role in reaffirming the notion that under no circumstances does the seizure of property by the police confer upon them the right to misappropriate it or retain it any longer than is absolutely necessary. Therefore, the order was primarily focused on the prevention of loss to citizens, reducing the burden on police stations by streamlining the safekeeping of property and ensuring proper implementation of statutory provisions in this regard. By emphasising the importance of protecting the rights of individuals and handling seized property responsibly, the court’s decision aimed to bring about a fair and just resolution. It serves as a reminder that the ultimate goal should be to safeguard the interests of the citizens and maintain the integrity of the legal system.  

Frequently Asked Questions (FAQs)

What is the meaning of property for the purpose of Section 451 of the CrPC?

The term ‘property’ here signifies four different kinds of properties mentioned below:

• Property used in the commission of an offence
• Property on which an offence has been committed
• Property which has been produced before the court
• Property which is in police or court custody

Therefore, the term “property” under Section 451 of the CrPC refers to those moveable as well as immovable articles and items in connection to which an offence has been committed or is to be used as evidence in a legal proceeding. 

What is a panchnama?

The panchnama is a legal document consisting of a record of observation, evidence, findings, or property found in relation to an offence. It is a crucial piece of evidence in a legal proceeding and helps establish the facts of the case. The purpose is to ensure transparency and accuracy in the investigation process. 

What is the remedy if property is lost or damaged while in police custody?

In such a case, if it is found that no prima facie evidence exists to show that proper care and caution had been undertaken by the police officers, the court can order the making of a payment of the value of property to the affected individual.

What is the process for getting back seized property from police or court custody?

Property is generally held under police custody until it is needed for production in court during a legal proceeding. After the evidence has been recorded and the property is no longer needed, the police officers or the court declare it to be available for return. The owner can file a claim for the property, and the court may pass an appropriate order as it deems fit. 

What is the time period in which a person can make a claim for recovery of seized property?

Section 457 of the CrPC mentions that, when the claimant of property is unknown, a proclamation may be issued regarding the property, enabling the person entitled to such property to make a claim before the Court within six months of the proclamation.

Which provision in the CrPC deals with the disposal of property?

Section 451-459 of the CrPC deals with various aspects of disposing, handling, returning or selling the seized property by an order of the court.  

References

• https://mercury.lawyer/viewcase/651ec112180afb38e41ea6a5
• https://www.livelaw.in/news-updates/gujarat-high-court-seized-vehicle-should-not-kept-police-stations-long-within-6-months-date-production-court-197014
• https://districts.ecourts.gov.in/sites/default/files/9-Disposal%20of%20Case%20property-by%20Smt%20M%20Shubhavani.pdf

---

Students of Lawsikho courses regularly produce writing assignments and work on practical exercises as a part of their coursework and develop themselves in real-life practical skills.

LawSikho has created a telegram group for exchanging legal knowledge, referrals, and various opportunities. You can click on this link and join:

https://t.me/lawyerscommunity

Follow us on Instagram and subscribe to our YouTube channel for more amazing legal content.