SUNDERBHAI AMBALAL DESAIversusSTATE OF GUJARAT
- Citation
- 2002 INSC 475
- Decided
- 18 November 2002
- Disposal
- Disposed off
Holding
No further directions are required; endorsement may be taken on a photograph when the accused disputes involvement and no article is found, and a seizure report suffices for a seized vehicle without physical production before the court.
Summary
The Supreme Court considered the procedure for custody and disposal of property seized by police under Sections 451 and 452 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973. The petitioners sought further directions on how seized items should be handled when the accused denies involvement and no physical article is recovered. The Court held that no additional directions were necessary, but clarified that an endorsement may be taken on a photograph of the seized article in such circumstances. It also observed that the physical production of a seized vehicle before the court is not mandatory; the seizure report alone suffices. Consequently, the Special Leave Petitions were disposed of without any further order.
Issues considered
- Whether, under Sections 451 and 452 of the CrPC, endorsement of a seized article can be taken on a photograph when the accused disputes involvement and no article is found.
- Whether the physical production of a seized vehicle before the court is required, or whether the seizure report alone is sufficient.
- Whether any further procedural directions are required for custody and disposal of seized property during inquiry or trial.
Legislation cited
- Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973s. 451, s. 452
Subjects
Judgment
SUNDERBHAI AMBALAL DESAI A
v.
STATE OF GUJARAT
NOVEMBER 18, 2002
[M.B. SHAH AND D.M. DHARMADHIKARI, JJ.] B
Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973:
Ss. 451 and 452-Custody and disposal, during inquiry or trial, of
property seized by police-Held, in view a/directions given on 111012002* no C
further directions are required-However, in a case where accused disputes
his involvement in the incident and no article was found from him then such
endorsement be taken on the photograph-As regards vehicles, there may not
be any necessity of producing the vehicle before the court and the seizure
report may be sufficient. D
*Sunderbhai Ambalal Desai v. State of Gujarat, AIR (2003) SC 638,
referred to.
CRIMINAL APPELLATE JURISDICTION : Special Leave Petition
(Crl.) No. 2745 of 2002. E
From the Judgment and Order dated 20.6.2002 of the Gujarat High
Court in Crl. R.A. No. 241 of 2002.
WITH
S.L.P. (Crl.) No. 2755 of 2002.
F
Ujwal Kumar Jha, Aslam Ahmed, Ranjan Kumar Jha, Nakul Dewan
and Ejaz Maqbool, for tlie Petitioner.
S.K. Dholakia and Ms. Hemantika Wahi, for the Respondent.
G
The following Order of the Court was delivered :
Heard learned counsel for the parties.
In our view, no further directions are required to be given in these
217
H
218 SUPREME COURT REPORTS [2002] SUPP. 4 S.C.R.
A matters. However, it is made clear that in case where accused dispute that
he is not involved in the alleged incident and no article was found from him
then such endorsement be taken on the photograph. Further with regard to
the vehicle also, it is made clear that there may not be any necessity of
producing the vehicle before the Court and the Seizure Report may be
B sufficient. The Special Leave Petitions are disposed of, accordingly.
R.P. Petitions disposed of.
.,,
Search Indian case law
Ask in plain English, not just keywords. 25,000 AI words free, no card.