The Madhya Pradesh High Court has laid down a crucial judicial principle: when jewellery or other valuable articles are seized by the police in connection with a crime, they should not be kept in police custody indefinitely if there is no complainant or claimant seeking their return. The Court emphasised that extended retention without accountability undermines both evidentiary integrity and property rights.
In a recent case, the High Court was confronted with a situation in which jewellery seized by the police was being held for an unusually long period despite no one formally claiming ownership. The Court noted that sometimes the original complainant or owner may reconcile with the accused, or simply choose not to assert their claim, but this does not justify the State holding on to valuable items in perpetuity. The Court pointed out that if there is no recorded complaint or no person stepping forward to reclaim the property, it is neither just nor practical to allow the items to remain locked up in police or court “malkhanas” indefinitely.
The Court cited well-established legal precedent under Section 451 of the Criminal Procedure Code (CrPC). According to the provision, when seized property is no longer required as evidence, it should be returned or otherwise disposed of. Drawing on Supreme Court jurisprudence, the High Court observed that the retention period must be limited to what is “absolutely necessary.” Prolonged detention of such articles without any owner claim distorts the purpose of seizure and custody under criminal law.
The Court referred specifically to a case where the original complainant had entered into a compromise with the accused, yet the police continued to hold onto jewellery long after the compromise. It held that, in such situations, the items should be released to the person from whom they were seized, or otherwise disposed of as justice demands. The Court underscored the State’s duty to exercise its powers under Section 451 responsibly and to act expeditiously.
Moreover, the High Court said that judicial and executive authorities must ensure a transparent and fair mechanism for disposal or return of seized articles whenever there is no claim. It called for orders to be passed without delay, taking into account the value, nature, and condition of the property, as well as the feasibility of safe custody or return. The Court emphasised that prompt action would avoid unnecessary risk of deterioration, loss, or neglect of valuables held by the police.
This ruling is a strong affirmation of property rights in the criminal justice system. It signals that while the State is empowered to seize property for investigation, that power must be balanced by accountability: once the need for custody ends, items cannot simply languish in police storerooms indefinitely. The High Court has thus set a clear directive for authorities to act promptly, justly, and in line with due process when no complainant emerges to reclaim seized jewellery.
0 Comments
Thank you for your response. It will help us to improve in the future.