Section 452 Cr.P.C. mandates that trial courts must pass an order for the disposal of seized property upon conclusion of trial; failure to do so cannot deprive the registered owner of their property, particularly following an acquittal.

Order

1. The matter comes up on a Misc. Application No. 01/26 filed under Section 452 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, seeking release of the seized vehicle bearing No. RJ-19GA-8832 (Tata Truck) belonging to applicant Banna Ram on supurdginama.

2.The applicant Banna Ram is the registered owner of the Tata Truck No. RJ-19GA-8832. During the course of investigation in a case registered under Sections 8/18 and 8/25 of the NDPS Act, the aforesaid vehicle was seized by the Investigating Officer and is presently lying in the custody of NCB Unit, Jodhpur.

3.The learned Special Judge, NDPS Cases No.1, Chittorgarh, vide judgment dated 08.08.2017, acquitted the accused persons from the charges under Sections 8/18 and 8/25 of the NDPS Act. However, while passing the judgment of acquittal, the learned trial Court omitted to pass any order regarding disposal of the seized vehicle, as mandated under Section 452 Cr.P.C. Aggreived by that the instant application has been filed.

4.It is not in dispute that the applicant Banna Ram is the registered owner of the vehicle in question. No rival claimant has come forward asserting any right over the said vehicle. The prosecution case has not been accepted by the learned trial Court and the accused persons have been acquitted after full-fledged trial.

5.It is also noteworthy that in S.B. Criminal Revision Petition No. 752/2020 (Ram Singh v. State), this Court has already ordered release of another vehicle belonging to co-accused Ram Singh, under similar circumstances.

6.The scheme of Section 452 Cr.P.C. obligates the criminal Court to pass an order regarding disposal of property upon conclusion of trial. In Firoz Shah & Anr. v. State of Rajasthan, S.B. Criminal Appeal (SB) No. 280/2023 decided on 29.08.2025, this Court has elaborately dealt with the statutory mandate of Section 452 Cr.P.C. The relevant paragraphs, thereof, which are applicable to the present case, read as under:

“5.2.The appellant now seeks release of the seized vehicle on the ground that he is the registered and undisputed owner, that no rival claim has ever been asserted, and that the vehicle has since remained idle in the open premises of the police station, exposed to natural decay, thereby resulting in imminent and irretrievable loss of its economic value.

6. The scheme of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 obligates courts to ensure due and timely disposal of property seized during trial. Section 452 Cr.P.C. mandates that upon conclusion of a criminal trial, the court must pass a clear order regarding disposal of property produced before it, whether by way of destruction, confiscation, or delivery to the rightful claimant. Section 452 Cr.P.C. is being reproduced as under:-

452. Order for disposal of property at conclusion of trial.

(1)When an inquiry or trial in any Criminal Court is concluded, the Court may make such order as it thinks fit for the disposal, by destruction, confiscation or delivery to any person claiming to be entitled to possession thereof or otherwise, of any property or document produced before it or in its custody, or regarding which any offence appears to have been committed, or which has been used for the commission of any offence.

(2)An order may be made under sub-section (1) for the delivery of any property to any person claiming to be entitled to the possession thereof, without any condition or on condition that he executes a bond, with or without sureties, to the satisfaction of the Court, engaging to restore such property to the Court if the order made under sub-section (1) is modified or set aside on appea