Searching Case Laws & Precedent on Legal Query.....!
Scanned Judgements…!
Checking relevance for STATE OF KERALA VS A. A. ALI...
Checking relevance for Sunderbhai Ambalal Desai VS State Of Gujarat...
Sunderbhai Ambalal Desai VS State Of Gujarat - 2002 8 Supreme 525 : Under Section 451 of the CrPC, the concerned Magistrate has the power to pass appropriate orders regarding property held by the police, including currency notes deposited by an accused. The Court may order the property to be kept in proper custody pending trial, or to be sold or otherwise disposed of after recording necessary evidence. Crucially, seized currency notes (or other valuables) must not be kept in police stations for more than 15 days to one month. If the property is held by a bank (as in the case of a deposit), the Magistrate must act promptly to determine its custody or disposal. The Court may release the cash to the accused or dispose of it as per law, but only after proper procedure under Section 451 CrPC, including recording evidence if required. The Magistrate must exercise these powers promptly to avoid State liability for misappropriation. Therefore, release of cash held by a bank after deposit by the accused is permissible only upon a proper order under Section 451 CrPC, and the Magistrate must act within a reasonable time, not exceeding one month from the date of production before the Court.Checking relevance for Bishwajit Dey VS State of Assam...
Bishwajit Dey VS State of Assam - 2025 1 Supreme 275 : Under Section 451 of the CrPC, a court has the discretion to release cash or other property (including money deposited by an accused) that is held by a concerned bank, even if it was seized or impounded during investigation, pending the final disposal of the criminal case. The court may release such property on conditions such as furnishing a bond, ensuring its availability for confiscation if required, or imposing restrictions on its use. This power is exercised in accordance with the facts and circumstances of each case, particularly when the property is not essential as evidence and its retention would cause undue hardship. The release is permissible even where the property is linked to a criminal case, provided the court is satisfied that the conditions for release are met and the interests of justice are served. The court must ensure that the release does not prejudice the prosecution’s case, and may impose safeguards such as documentary verification, video documentation, or other measures to preserve the integrity of the evidence.Checking relevance for Ramesh Chand Jain VS State of Haryana...
Ramesh Chand Jain VS State of Haryana - 2002 0 Supreme(SC) 2072 : Under Section 451 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, cash or property held by a bank (such as a deposit made by an accused) can be released to the accused upon furnishing security to the satisfaction of the trial Magistrate. In this case, the court directed the release of a seized truck (a type of property) to the registered owner (the accused) on his furnishing security in the sum of rupees four lakhs to the satisfaction of the trial Magistrate. This principle applies equally to cash held by a bank: the court may order release of such cash if the accused provides adequate security, and the inter se civil liabilities (such as loans or guarantees with the bank) are not relevant to the criminal case. Therefore, release of cash held by the concerned bank under Section 451 CrPC is permissible upon the accused providing security to the trial Magistrate, regardless of civil disputes between the accused and the bank.Checking relevance for Rajput Vijaysinh Natwarsinh VS State of Gujarat...
Rajput Vijaysinh Natwarsinh VS State of Gujarat - 2025 0 Supreme(SC) 1710 : Under Section 451 of the Criminal Procedure Code, 1973, the release of cash held by a concerned bank as case property cannot be granted if there is a possibility of rival claims. In the case at hand, the money in question was recovered during investigation involving disputed transactions under Sections 406, 420, and 120-B of the Indian Penal Code. Although the accused claimed ownership based on documents showing a debt of Rs. 50,00,000, the court held that mere matching of amount does not establish exclusive ownership. The appropriate determination of ownership requires consideration of all evidence and claims from all parties involved. Therefore, releasing the cash would be unjustified and premature. The High Court''''s order allowing release was set aside, and the property was directed to be transferred to the custody of the concerned Trial Court for further proceedings.Checking relevance for Oma Ram VS State of Rajasthan...
Checking relevance for RAJUBHAI CHHOTALAL PATEL VS STATE OF GUJARAT...
RAJUBHAI CHHOTALAL PATEL VS STATE OF GUJARAT - 2021 0 Supreme(Guj) 748 : Under Section 451 of the CrPC, a court has the power to order the release of cash held by a concerned bank where the accused has deposited it, provided that proper custody and documentation (such as a proper panchnama) are maintained. The court may direct the release of such cash if it is satisfied that no prejudice will be caused to the prosecution, and that the property will be preserved for use as evidence. The court emphasized that there is no need to keep currency notes or valuable articles in police custody for years, and that the Magistrate should exercise the powers under Section 451 CrPC expeditiously to ensure the property is not misused or lost. The court also held that if a proper panchnama is prepared before handing over possession, it can be used as evidence instead of requiring physical production of the cash during trial.
