The determination of interim custody of seized property hinges on proving legal ownership and the urgency of safeguarding perishable goods without compromising ongoing investigations.

ORDER

This Criminal Revision Case has been filed by the petitioner/accused, challenging the order passed by the learned Judicial Magistrate No.I, Ramanathapuram, in Crl.M.P.No.455 of 2025 dated 16.06.2025, whereby the petition filed by the petitioner seeking interim custody of certain seized properties was dismissed.

2.The properties in respect of which interim custody was sought are: (i)One Apple iPhone (IMEI Nos. 353884193318631 and

353884192899334); (ii)One Apple laptop;

(iii)Certain foreign currency notes; and (iv)Bundles of beedi leaves weighing 17 kg -19 bundles and 18 kg -45 bundles, totalling 1133 kilograms.

Order of the Trial Court:-

3.The learned Judicial Magistrate dismissed the petition mainly on the following grounds:

(i)The petitioner failed to produce purchase bills or legally admissible documents proving ownership of the mobile phones. The only document filed was a record from the phone itself, which did not establish ownership.

(ii)In respect of the Apple laptop, although a tax invoice was filed, it bore neither a signature nor a seal of the authorised signatory. The Court therefore declined to treat it as proof of ownership.

(iii)Regarding the foreign currency notes, the petitioner failed to satisfactorily explain possession. His mere assertion that the notes were procured during foreign travels was unsupported by documents.

(iv)As to the beedi leaves, the registration and GST certificates produced were not duly verified. The documents relating to the Odisha Forest Development Corporation were photocopies. The membership certificate of the Shellac and Forest Products Export Promotion Council was only a computer-generated copy valid till 31.03.2025, which could not establish ownership.

(v)On these grounds, the Trial Court rejected the application under Sections 497 and 513 of the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023, seeking return of property.

Grounds of Revision:-

4.The petitioner/accused challenges the impugned order on the grounds that the learned Trial Court failed to consider his lawful business in Kendu (beedi) leaves, duly supported by licences from State and Central Governments and that the documents produced sufficiently established bonafide possession of the seized articles. He further submitted that the learned Trial Court failed to appreciate that online/computer-generated bills are common and often issued without signatures and he was willing to execute bonds for release of the seized articles, which are perishable in nature.

Submissions:-

5.The learned counsel appearing for the petitioner argued on the following points:

5.1.False Implication as Smuggler – The petitioner argues that the police are deliberately projecting him as a smuggler on account of pendency of four sea cucumber cases, one of which ended in acquittal and three of which are pending.

5.2.Seizure of Articles – Based on a confession of co-accused in Crime No.42 of 2025, police searched his house and godown and seized electronic devices, foreign currencies, and 1,133 kilograms of beedi leaves. He claims lawful purchase supported by Odisha Forest Department receipts.

5.3.Legality of Business – His company, BAF Trading Company, is licensed since 2018 for trading and export of beedi leaves.

5.4.Foreign Currency – The seized 34 notes are small denominations obtained during business travels; passports were filed in proof.

5.5.Prior False Implication – In Crime No.19 of 2025, the Magistrate rejected police remand, recognising his valid licences.

5.6.Return of Goods – Beedi leaves are perishable; electronic devices are personal. He is willing to execute undertakings.

5.7.Reliance on Case Law – He cites Sunderbhai Ambalal Desai