2025 INSC 1129 (Rajput Vijaysinh Natwarsinh v. State of Gujarat & Ors.) decided on 18 September 2025 by the Supreme Court of India:
Court & Bench
-
Supreme Court of India
-
Bench: Sanjay Karol J. & Prashant Kumar Mishra J.
Case Citation
-
2025 INSC 1129
-
Crl. A @ SLP(Crl) 3179 of 2025
Facts
-
A complaint (FIR No. 11206078220159/2022) was lodged against the appellant (accused) alleging cheating and breach of trust in castor seed trading worth ₹44.53 lakhs (complainant) and other firms amounting to ₹3.49 crores in total.
-
Police seized ₹50 lakhs cash as muddamal (case property).
-
Respondent No. 2 (a trader) sought release of the ₹50 lakhs claiming it was due to him from the accused, relying on bills, ledger and audit reports.
-
Trial Court & Sessions Court: Rejected release, holding ownership disputed, amount being “proceeds of crime,” and could only be decided in trial.
-
High Court of Gujarat: Allowed release of cash to Respondent No. 2 upon furnishing personal bond and after panchnama, relying on Sunderbhai Ambalal Desai v. State of Gujarat (2002).
-
The appellant challenged this HC order before the Supreme Court.
Issue
Whether the seized ₹50 lakhs (muddamal) can be released in favour of Respondent No. 2 before conclusion of trial.
Law Involved
-
Section 451 CrPC – Custody and disposal of property pending trial.
-
Sunderbhai Ambalal Desai v. State of Gujarat (2002) – Guidelines for release of seized property.
Held
-
The High Court erred in directing release of cash to Respondent No. 2 at this stage.
-
Ownership of the seized amount cannot be conclusively determined now since:
-
Multiple victims/claimants exist.
-
Matching the seized amount with respondent’s claim does not prove sole entitlement.
-
Only trial can determine proper ownership.
-
-
Trial Court and Sessions Court orders restored.
-
Since respondent had already withdrawn the amount pursuant to HC order:
-
Directed deposit of withdrawn amount (with interest) in Trial Court.
-
Original currency notes, if still available, to be deposited.
-
Only after cross-verification with panchnama, amount can be permitted to be withdrawn.
-
Decision
-
Appeal Allowed.
-
HC judgment set aside; Trial Court & Sessions Court orders restored.
-
Pending applications disposed of
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------
2025 INSC 1129
Crl. A@ SLP(Crl) 3179 of 2025 Page 1 of 9
NON-REPORTABLE
IN THE SUPREME COURT OF INDIA
CRIMINAL APPELLATE JURISDICTION
CRIMINAL APPEAL NO. OF 2025
(Arising out of SLP(Criminal)No.3179 of 2025)
RAJPUT VIJAYSINH NATWARSINH …APPELLANT(S)
Versus
STATE OF GUJARAT & ORS. …RESPONDENT(S)
J U D G M E N T
SANJAY KAROL J,
Leave granted
2. The appellant-accused has challenged a judgment passed
by the learned Single Judge of the High Court of Gujarat at
Ahmedabad in R/Special Criminal Application (Quashing) No.
1955 of 2024, dated 4th December 2024 whereby release of case
property (cash)1
in connection with First Information Report
being CR No. 11206078220159 of 2022 was allowed by the
1 Hereinafter ‘muddamal’
Crl. A@ SLP(Crl) 3179 of 2025 Page 2 of 9
Court. The said application before the High Court was preferred
against orders dated 1st August 2023 and 30th December 2023
passed by the Additional Chief Judicial Magistrate of Unjha, in
Criminal Case No. 366 of 2022 and by the Additional Sessions
Judge, Mahesana Visnagar, respectively.
3. The facts, leading up to the impugned judgment, as can be
understood from the judgments of the Courts below are that one
Chiragkumar Dilipbhai Natwarlal Modi, lodged a complaint
before the PS Unava, District Mahesana on 9th April 2022
alleging that the appellant-accused ran a proprietary firm by the
name of Jay Gopal Trading Company and had conducted
business with the complainant worth Rs. 44,53,714/- in castor
seeds on different dates and various cheques given in respect of
this amount were returned due to insufficient balance. It was also
alleged that the said Company had done business with other
concerns totalling Rs.3,49,07,073/- (including the payment of the
complainant) and had similarly not paid the amounts due. The
police completed its investigation and presented chargesheet on
5 June 2022 under Sections 406, 420 and 120-B Indian Penal
Code, 1860. Therein, in support of its case the State listed a total
of 41 witnesses and respondent no. 2 herein / the petitioner before
the High Court was listed at serial no. 4 in the said list.
4. Respondent No. 2 filed an application before the
Additional Chief Judicial Magistrate, Unjha in Criminal Case
Crl. A@ SLP(Crl) 3179 of 2025 Page 3 of 9
No. 366 of 2022 seeking release of ‘muddamal’ i.e., cash amount
of Rs. 50,00,000 was seized during the investigation, on the
ground that the said amount pertained to him for the goods he had
sold through his concern namely Bhadrakali Tobacco to the
Company of the appellant-accused and in that regard he has
produced a copy of the bill, the audit report and ledger account.
The learned Trial Judge, however, refused such prayer observing
as follows:
“… on perusing the charge-sheet, it appears at the
present stage that in allegation against the accused of
this case is that of committing cheating and breach
of trust with the complainant and the witnesses
stated in the charge-sheet and in that when objection
of all the witnesses are not obtained on behalf of the
applicant, then in that case, when the case
proceedings are pending and it has become a matter
of evidence as to whom the muddamal be handed
over at this stage and hence, it does not appear to be
proper and just to take any decision regarding
muddamal…”
5. In an appeal filed under Section 397 of the Code of
Criminal Procedure, the Additional Sessions Judge, Mahesana at
Visnagar confirmed that the order of the court below observing:
“… In this case, it has revealed during the
investigation that the accused has committed
cheating and breach of trust with so many merchants
over and above the complainant. The investigating
Officer has seized the above amount during the
investigation as proceeds of crime money.
Crl. A@ SLP(Crl) 3179 of 2025 Page 4 of 9
Moreover, no any supporting evidence is produced
on behalf of the applicant/accused by which it can be
believed prima facie that the amount seized by the
Investigating Agency is the amount prior to
occurrence of the offence. Moreover, the list of
victims is very lengthy as stated by the complainant
in the complaint. It is the subject matter of evidence
as to who lost how much amount from amongst the
victims. In this way, this amount of relating to the
proceeds of crime and hence, question of returning
the said amount to the accused at this stage does not
arise… Hence, it cannot be said to be just to return
this amount to anyone from amongst the accused or
the witness Bhargav Patel…”
6. The respondent no. 2 then preferred a petition before the
High Court under Articles 226 and 227 of the Constitution of
India against these orders. Taking a view opposite from the one
taken by the Courts below, the High Court reasoned as follows:
“6. Considering the facts and circumstances of the
present case and procedure laid down by the Apex
Court in case of Sundarbhai Desai (Supra), this
Court is of considered opinion that, the interim
custody of the cash amount, if released in favour of
the petitioner, no prejudice is likely to be caused to
the prosecution. Thus, therefore, the currency notes
seized by the police is required to be released in
favour of the petitioner who is lawfully entitled to
claim the amount.
7. In the result, the petition is allowed. The
impugned order dated 01.08.2023 passed below
Exh.27 by the Ld. Principal Senior Civil Judge &
JMFC, Unjha, Mehsana in Criminal Case No. 366 of
2022, as well as order dated 30.12.2023 passed in
Criminal Revision Application No.67 of 2023 by Ld.
Addl. District & Sessions Judge, Mehsana at
Visnagar, are hereby quashed and set aside. The
authority concerned and/or court concerned, is
Crl. A@ SLP(Crl) 3179 of 2025 Page 5 of 9
directed to release the muddamal cash amount of
the petitioner on condition of furnishing personal
bond of equal the equivalent amount. Before
handing over the possession of the muddamal cash
amount to the petitioner, detailed panchnama of the
currency notes with their numbers and/or
denomination if not already drawn, shall be drawn
for the purpose of trial. The production of the
currency notes during the course of trial should not
be insisted to produce by the petitioner. The
petitioner is permitted to use the currency notes.”
7. Aggrieved by this order, the appellant-accused is before
us. We have heard the learned counsel for the parties.
8. At the outset, we may reproduce Section 451 of the Code
of Criminal Procedure, 1973 which forms part of Chapter
XXXIV titled ‘Disposal of Property’ for reference:
“451. Order for custody and disposal of property
pending trial in certain cases.—When any property
is produced before any Criminal Court during any
inquiry or trial, the Court may make such order as it
thinks fit for the proper custody of such property
pending the conclusion of the inquiry or trial, and, if
the property is subject to speedy and natural decay,
or if it is otherwise expedient so to do, the Court
may, after recording such evidence as it thinks
necessary, order it to be sold or otherwise disposed
of.
Explanation.— For the purposes of this section, “property”
includes—
(a) property of any kind or document which is
produced before the Court or which is in its
custody;
(b) any property regarding which an offence appears
to have been committed or which appears to have
been used for the commission of any offence.
Crl. A@ SLP(Crl) 3179 of 2025 Page 6 of 9
9. This Court in Sunderbhai Ambalal Desai v. State of
Gujarat2
, while dealing with Section 451 of the Code held thus:
“Valuable articles and currency notes
11. With regard to valuable articles, such as, golden
or silver ornaments or articles studded with precious
stones, it is submitted that it is of no use to keep such
articles in police custody for years till the trial is
over. In our view, this submission requires to be
accepted. In such cases, the Magistrate should pass
appropriate orders as contemplated under Section
451 CrPC at the earliest.
This extract is taken from Sunderbhai Ambalal
Desai v. State of Gujarat, (2002) 10 SCC 283 : 2003
SCC (Cri) 1943 : 2002 SCC OnLine SC 934 at page
288
12. For this purpose, if material on record indicates
that such articles belong to the complainant at whose
house theft, robbery or dacoity has taken place, then
seized articles be handed over to the complainant
after:
(1) preparing detailed proper panchnama of such
articles;
(2) taking photographs of such articles and a bond
that such articles would be produced if required at
the time of trial; and
(3) after taking proper security.
13. For this purpose, the court may follow the
procedure of recording such evidence, as it thinks
necessary, as provided under Section 451 CrPC. The
bond and security should be taken so as to prevent
the evidence being lost, altered or destroyed. The
court should see that photographs of such articles are
attested or countersigned by the complainant,
accused as well as by the person to whom the
custody is handed over. Still however, it would be
the function of the court under Section 451 CrPC to
impose any other appropriate condition.
2
(2002) 10 SCC 283
Crl. A@ SLP(Crl) 3179 of 2025 Page 7 of 9
14. In case, where such articles are not handed over
either to the complainant or to the person from
whom such articles are seized or to its claimant, then
the court may direct that such articles be kept in bank
lockers. Similarly, if articles are required to be kept
in police custody, it would be open to the SHO after
preparing proper panchnama to keep such articles in
a bank locker. In any case, such articles should be
produced before the Magistrate within a week of
their seizure. If required, the court may direct that
such articles be handed back to the investigating
officer for further investigation and identification.
However, in no set of circumstances, the
investigating officer should keep such articles in
custody for a longer period for the purposes of
investigation and identification. For currency notes,
similar procedure can be followed.”
10. The High Court has correctly referred to this judgment,
however, in our considered view failed to appreciate its holding
in the attending facts and circumstances of the instant case. We
say so for the reason that the money in question was recovered
as part of an investigation in which the exchange of money is
the subject matter of controversy. As we have already noted
supra, the dispute pertains to money paid to the complainant and
other like firms, in the course of business. It is undisputed that
respondent no. 2 has produced before the High Court certain
documents to show that the proprietary firm through the
appellant-accused, owed him/his concern a sum of
Rs.50,00,000/-. However, it is entirely possible that the said
sum of money was part of some other transaction. Simply
because the amount owed to him matches the amount recovered
Crl. A@ SLP(Crl) 3179 of 2025 Page 8 of 9
does not establish that he is the only claimant to the said amount.
As such, we hold that the Additional District and Sessions
Judge, Mehsana correctly took the view that the direct
ownership of the said Respondent cannot be conclusively
established.
11. The appropriate ownership of the sum of money can only
be determined after consideration of all evidence and having
taken into account the claims and views of all the other persons
that the appellant-accused has allegedly played foul with, in
business. The evidence presented by respondent no. 2 to
establish his claim over the said amount will have to be
considered by the Court seized of trial in the matter, and then
only can a proper decision be arrived at. At this stage, therefore,
releasing the muddamal would be unjustified and premature.
12. In that view of the matter, the appeal is allowed. The
judgment of the High Court with particulars as mentioned in
paragraph 1 is set aside and the judgment and orders of the
Courts below are restored.
13. By our order dated 21st July 2025 it was recorded that
pursuant to the directions of the High Court, private respondents
had already withdrawn the amount. It was as such directed that
the said amount be deposited with the Registry of this Court
along with the interest accrued thereupon. The Registry is
directed to transfer the said amount to the custody of the
Crl. A@ SLP(Crl) 3179 of 2025 Page 9 of 9
concerned Trial Court forthwith. We direct the private
respondents to forthwith deposit before the Trial Court the
original currency notes, should they still be available with him.
Once that is done, the amount deposited by him in terms of our
is permitted to be withdrawn. Such withdrawal will only be
permitted once cross verification has taken place from the
detailed panchnama that would have been drawn in accordance
with the order of the High Court.
Pending applications, if any, shall stand disposed of.
……………………………………J.
(SANJAY KAROL)
……………………………………J.
(PRASHANT KUMAR MISHRA)
New Delhi;
18th September 2025
