Search Results Page
Search Results
1 - 10 of 11 (0.51 seconds)Section 412 in The Indian Penal Code, 1860 [Entire Act]
Section 395 in The Indian Penal Code, 1860 [Entire Act]
Section 380 in The Indian Penal Code, 1860 [Entire Act]
Section 120B in The Indian Penal Code, 1860 [Entire Act]
Section 457 in The Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 [Entire Act]
Section 451 in The Indian Penal Code, 1860 [Entire Act]
Sunderbha1 Ambalal Desai vs State Of Gujarat on 1 October, 2002
The law on the subject has already been settled by the Hon'ble Apex Court, which can be deduced from the relevant observation of the made in the judgment passed in the case of Sunderbhai Ambalal Desai vs. State of Gujarat, (2002) 10 SCC 283. The relevant portion of the judgment, referred, is extracted hereinunder:-
Smt. Basavva Kom Dyamangouda Patil vs State Of Mysore And Anr. on 19 April, 1977
In Basavva Kom Dyamangouda Patil v. State of Mysore [(1977) 4 SCC 358 : 1977 SCC (Cri) 598] this Court dealt with a case where the seized articles were not available for being returned to the complainant. In that case, the recovered ornaments were kept in a trunk in the police station and later it was found missing, the question was with regard to payment of those articles. In that context, the Court observed as under: (SCC p. 361, para 4)
"4. The object and scheme of the various provisions of the Code appear to be that where the property which has been the subject-matter of an offence is seized by the police it ought not to be retained in the custody of the court or of the police for any time longer than what is absolutely necessary. As the seizure of the property by the police amounts to a clear entrustment of the property to a government servant, the idea is that the property should be restored to the original owner after the necessity to retain it ceases. It is manifest that there may be two stages when the property may be returned to the owner. In the first place it may be returned during any inquiry or trial. This may particularly be necessary where the property concerned is subject to speedy or natural decay. There may be other compelling reasons also which may justify the disposal of the property to the owner or otherwise in the interest of justice. The High Court and the Sessions Judge proceeded on the footing that one of the essential requirements of the Code is that the articles concerned must be produced before the court or should be in its custody. The object of the Code seems to be that any property which is in the control of the court either directly or indirectly should be disposed of by the court and a just and proper order should be passed by the court regarding its disposal. In a criminal case, the police always acts under the direct control of the court and has to take orders from it at every stage of an inquiry or trial. In this broad sense, therefore, the court exercises an overall control on the actions of the police officers in every case where it has taken cognizance."