Back
SUPREME COURT OF INDIA
(BEFORE K. JAYACHANDRA REDDY, S. MOHAN AND G.N. RAY, JJ.)
NAIZ AHMED
Versus
STATE OF U.P. AND ANOTHER
Criminal Appeal No. 430 of 1980, decided on November 17, 1993
Property Dispute - Criminal Proceedings - Return of Seized Property
Fact of the Case:
The appellant purchased a truck that was seized in a theft case. After the criminal proceedings ended in favor of the accused, the truck was returned to the respondent-accused. The appellant claimed that he should not have been dispossessed after purchasing the truck.
Finding of the Court:
The court considered the facts and circumstances and ruled that when a criminal proceeding is disposed of, the property in dispute has to be returned to the person from whom it was seized or who was entitled to its possession. The appellant had no legal claim in this case, but could claim and take a refund of the amount paid for the truck.
Issues: Dispossession of the appellant after purchasing the seized truck, legal claim in a property dispute
Ratio Decidendi: When a criminal proceeding is concluded, the property in dispute must be returned to the rightful owner or possessor. The appellant had no legal claim in this case.
Final Decision: The appeal was disposed of, and the appellant could claim and take a refund of the amount paid for the truck.
ORDER
1. Heard learned counsel.
2. In a case of theft against the first respondents truck was seized. It appears from the criminal proceedings that an auction was held and the truck in question was purchased by the appellant. Thereafter the criminal proceedings ended in favour of the accused from whom the truck was seized. Consequently, it was returned to the respondent-accused. The appellant has come forward with these proceedings stating that once he has purchased the truck he should not have been dispossessed. It is needless to say when a criminal proceeding is disposed of, the property in dispute has to be returned and the court considering all the facts and circumstances returned the truck to the person from whom it was seized or who was entitled to have its possession. That being the case, the appellant cannot have any legal claim in a case of this nature. We are told that an amount of Rs 3500 was paid by the appellant which is in deposit and if it is so, he can still claim the same and take refund of it. With this observation the appeal is disposed of.
For Citation : 1994 Supp (3) SCC 356
An indispensable Tool for Legal Professionals, Endorsed by Various High Court and Judicial Officers
Please visit our Training & Support
Center or Contact Us for assistance
Scan Me!
India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!
For Daily Legal Updates, Join us on :
Back to top
