PAPPU @ MADHAV SONI vs STATE OF CHHATTISGARH

1 / 10

CGHC010070772022 2026:CGHC:45319
NAFR
HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR
Digitally
signed by
SANTOSH
KUMAR
SHARMA
Date:
2026.10.27
23:38:28
+0530
CRR No. 232 of 2022
SANTOSH
KUMAR
SHARMA
Order reserved on 19.08.2026
Order delivered on 27.10. 2026.
Pappu @ Madhav Soni S/o Ramjiyavan Aged About 50 Years R/o Behind
F.C.I. Godam, Manendragarh, District- Koriya, Chhattisgarh, District :
Koriya (Baikunthpur), Chhattisgarh
... Applicant (s)
versus
State Of Chhattisgarh Through- Police Station Jhagra-Khand, District-
Koriya, Chhattisgarh, District : Koriya (Baikunthpur), Chhattisgarh
... Respondents
For Applicant : Mr. Siddharth Dubey, Advocate
For Respondents : Mr. Amit Verma, Panel Lawyer
Hon'ble Shri Justice Narendra Kumar Vyas
C A V Order
1. This revision under Secton 438 read with Section 397 & 401 of the
CrPC has been filed by the applicant assailing the order dated
12.01.2022 passed in CRA No. 34 of 2020 by learned First Additional
Sessions Judge, Manendragarh whereby applicant's appeal with regard

2 / 10
to possession of gold & silver jewellery (ornaments) seized from the
applicant has been dismissed by the Appellate Court and affirmed the
order dated 10.02.2020 passed in Criminal Case No. 403 of 2016 by
learned Judicial Magistrate, First Class Manendragarh District Koriya,
by which learned trial Court in paragraph-17 has ordered for
confiscation of seized articles of 36 mg gold worth of Rs. 1 lakh 8
thousands seized from possession of the applicant.
2. Facts of the case in brief are that an Istgasa/Crime No. 04/14 under
Sections 41(1-4) Cr.P.C. under Section 379 and 411 of the Indian Penal
Code was registered at the instance of Sub Inspector Shivendra
Rajput. It is alleged that during investigation, it was found that co-
accused Rajesh Ghasiya, Jitendra and Mangalsai Basor, operating an
organized gang used to commit theft of gold and silver
ornaments/jewellery from passengers who were travelling in trains
running from Chirmiri to Bilaspur and sold the stolen jewellery to
applicant Madhav Soni. During search, the police seized 36 grams of
melted gold, worth 1,08,000/- from the possession of the applicant. ₹
Memorandum statements of Rajesh Sarti, Jitendra @ Jitu and Mangal
Sai were recorded under (Ex.P-1, Ex.P-2, Ex.P-3) and after completing
necessary formalities, the Police lodged FIR (Ex.P-4) and arrested the
applicant and other co-accused. After completion of the investigation,
charge-sheet was filed before Judicial Magistrate First Class,
Manendragarh against all the accused including the applicant.

3 / 10
3. Learned Judicial Magistrate First Class Manendragarh after
considering the material, evidence on record has acquitted the
applicant and other co-accused of the charges under Sections 397/34
and 411 of the IPC and has ordered for confiscation of 36 grams gold
total worth Rs. 1 lakh 8 thousands in favour of the State Government
as the applicant has not claimed ownership of the aforesaid property.
Against that order, the applicant has filed Criminal appeal before the
Appellate Court wherein the appellate Court has affirmed the order of
the learned trial Court and has dismissed the appeal. Being aggrieved
with the order of the Appellate Court, the applicant has filed this
Criminal Revision before this Court.
4. Learned counsel for the applicant would submit that the orders passed
by the Appellate court as well as trial Court are bad in law and contrary
to the facts and material available on record as he has submitted bills,
document of sale and purchase to demonstrate that he has ownership
of the property. He would further submit that the applicant having been
acquitted of the offence of theft, therefore, being the owner the property
should have been delivered to him. He would further submit that the
prosecution failed to prove that the applicant was involved in selling
and purchasing of theft gold ornaments and the items were seized from
his possession, therefore, ownership lies with the applicant only, as
such order of the court below for confiscation of the seized property is
illegal and would pray for setting aside the orders passed by both the
Courts below.

4 / 10
5. On the other hand learned counsel for the State opposes the
submission made by learned counsel for the applicant and would
submit that the orders passed by the trial Court as well as Appellate
Court are legal, justified as no illegality or irregularity has been pointed
out by the applicant which entitle this court to interfere in the orders
while exercising its revisional jurisdiction and would pray for dismissal
of revision.
6. I have heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the records.
7. From the submission made by the parties and the record of the trial
Court the point emerges for determination is whether the order of the
Appellate Court affirming the order dated 10.02.2022 passed by
Judicial Magistrate, First Class Manendragarh ordering for confiscation
of seized property after conclusion of trial suffers from perversity and
illegality warranting interference by this Court.
8. For better understanding the point of determination, it is expedient for
this Court to extract Section 452 CrPC.
Section 452 CrPC 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 appeal or
revision.

5 / 10
(3) A Court of Session may, instead of itself making an order under
sub-section (1), direct the property to be delivered to the Chief
Judicial Magistrate, who shall thereupon deal with it in the manner
provided in Sections 457, 458 and 459.
(4) Except where the property is livestock or is subject to speedy
and natural decay, or where a bond has been executed in
pursuance of sub-section (2), an order made under sub-section (1)
shall not be carried out for two months, or when an appeal is
presented, until such appeal has been disposed of.
(5) In this section, the term "property" includes, in the case of
property regarding which an offence appears to have been
committed, not only such property as has been originally in the
possession or under the control of any party, but also any property
into or for which the same may have been converted or
exchanged, and anything acquired by such conversion or
exchange, whether immediately or otherwise.
9. From the above stated provisions of CrPC, it is quite vivid that
proceeding under Section 452 operates for disposal of the property at
conclusion of the trial, as such the person claiming ownership of the
property seized crime can very well take assistance of seizure memo
which are duly proved by examining the witnesses during the trial, and
the accused has also opportunity to explain the circumstances of
availability of the property on his memorandum statement recorded
under Section 27 of the Evidence Act then only entitlement of
ownership of the person can be determined, therefore, this Court has to
consider the memorandum statements of the accused persons and
seizure memo while determining the ownership of the seized articles.
10. From the memorandum statement of co-accused Rajesh Sarthi,
Jitendra @ Jittu Sarti and Mangal Sai recorded under Section 27 of the
Evidence Act, it is quite vivid that they have sold gold 3-4 tolas to
Pappu Soni after committing theft from the passengers traveling in trail
from Chirmiri to Bilaspur.

6 / 10
11. It is pertinent to mention here that Section 27 of the Evidence Act,
provides that when any fact is deposed with regard to discovery in
consequence of information received from a person accused of any
offence, in the custody of a police officer, so much of such information
will be distinctly related to the fact discovered, may be proved. Section
27 of the Evidence Act, has recently come up for consideration before
the Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case o f Neelu @ Nilesh Kosti vs.
State of Madhya Pradesh reported in 2026 INSC 173 wherein the
Hon’ble Supreme Court has held in paragraph 22 as under:-
22) The aforesaid legal position was comprehensively
reiterated and elaborate d upon by this Court in Bodhraj Alias
Bodha and Others vs. State of Jammu and Kashmir 2002 (8)
SCC 45, wherein the question of whether evidence relating to
recovery is sufficient to fasten guilt on the accused was
examined at length. This Court held that for evidence under
Section 27 to be admissible, the information must emanate
from an accused who is in police custody. The Court elucidated
that the basic idea embedded in Section 27 is the doctrine of
confirmation by subsequent events when a fact is discovered
on the strength of information obtained from a prisoner, such
discovery serves as a guarantee of the truthfulness of the
information supplied. The Court further observed that whether
the information is confessional or non-inculpatory in nature, if it
results in the discovery of a fact, it becomes reliable
information. Significantly, it was held that the mere recovery of
an object does not constitute the discovery of fact envisaged in
the section. Relying on the Privy Council's decision in Pulukuri
Kottayya and Others vs. King Emperor AIR 1947 PC 67, the
Court held that the "fact discovered" embraces not merely the
object recovered, but the place from which the object was
produced and the knowledge of the accused as to its existence,
and that the information given must relate distinctly to that
effect.
12. Considering the aforesaid legal position and the facts of the case, the
information given by the accused in the police custody regarding
discovery of theft gold distinctly related to the fact discovered under

7 / 10
Section 27 of the Evidence Act as the recovery of gold from the precise
location could only have been made on the basis of information
furnished by someone who had personal knowledge about it.
13. Further considering the position of law that for proceeding under
Section 452 CrPC the memorandum statement of the accused is piece
of evidence for the purpose of considering and deciding who is the best
person entitled to possession of the property. The Hon’ble Supreme
Court in the case of Mahesh Kumar vs. State of Rajasthan reported
in 1990 supp SCC 541 has examined this issue and has held as
under:-
2. In the facts and circumstances of the present case, we are
satisfied that the direction made by the learned Single Judge
of the Rajasthan High Court for the forfeiture of the amount of
Rs 20,000 (Rupees twenty thousand) to the State is wholly
unwarranted. It is now accepted principle that the
confessional part of the statement made by the accused
leading to discovery within the meaning of Section 27 of the
Evidence Act, 1872 or Section 162 of the Code of Criminal
Procedure, 1973 can be made use of for purpose of and the
disposal of property under Section 452 of the Code. There is
a long line of decisions laying down the principle and we
would refer to only a few of them.
3. In Queen Empress v. Tribhovan Manekchand a Division
Bench of the Bombay High Court laid down that the statement
made to the police by the accused persons as to the
ownership of property which was the subject matter of the
proceedings against them although inadmissible as evidence
against them at the trial for the offence with which they were
charged, were admissible as evidence with regard to the
ownership of the property in an enquiry held by the Criminal
Procedure Code. The same view was reiterated in Pohlu v.
Emperor where it was pointed out that though there is a bar in
Section 25 of the Evidence Act, or in Section 162 CrPC for
being made use of as evidence against the accused, this
statement could be made use of in an enquiry under Section
517 CrPC when determining the question of return of
property. These two decisions have been followed by the
Rajasthan High Court in Dhanraj Baldeokishan v. State and

8 / 10
the Mysore High Court in Veerabhadrappa v. Govinda. In the
present case, the amount in question was seized from the
accused in pursuance of statements made by them under
Section 27 of the Evidence Act. The High Court as well as the
courts below have found the property to be the subject of theft
and the acquittal of the accused is upon benefit of doubt. The
accused persons disclaimed the stolen property and there is
no reason why the same should not be returned to the owner
i.e. the complainant to whom it belongs.
14. The High Court of Madhya Pradesh in the case Kamarlal and another vs.
State of M.P. and another reported in 1992 SCC Online M.P. 246 has held
as under:-
9. The learned counsel appearing on behalf of the
complainant-accused has placed reliance on a decision of
this court of Babulal v. State of M.P (1989 C.Cr.J 11) wherein
it has been observed that the power of the criminal court
under S. 452, Cr.P.C. to make an order for the disposal of the
property at the conclusion of the trial is summary in nature
and on order so made does not adjudicate upon the civil
rights of the parties and the persons aggrieved are free to file
a civil suit for enforcement off their rights in the property and
that the provisions under the law do not bar statement of the
accused made to the police officer during investigation being
used to determine the person to whom custody of the
property could be delivered.
(10.) In the instant case, the argument of the learned counsel
for the petitioners-Accused is that that the property in dispute
belongs to the Accused persons and the police seized the
property from the Accused persons and implanted the same
for the purpose of seizure in pursuance of memorandum
under S. 27 of the Evidence Act. This argument in my opinion,
has no legs to stand. If the police had seized the property
belonging to the Accused persons from them, it was but
natural that they would have made complaint of such
highhandedness on the part of police at some forum. It was
also expected in that circumstances that the Accused persons
would, from the very outset make a claim to the property as
belonging to them but they advisedly kept silent for some time
even after the complainant made an application under S. 452
of the Cr. P.C. The Accused persons also denied any seizure
of the property from them in the examination of the Accused.
In these circumstances, no claim has been established of the
Accused over the property which was the subject matter of
the alleged offence of theft. In fact, the Accused persons have

9 / 10
been acquitted because they were not found to be in
possession of the property which was allegedly seized from
them. Moreover, as observed in the case of Babulal (supra)
the disposal of property u/S. 452, Cr. P.C. is summary in
nature and subject to proper adjudication of civil rights of the
parties in a civil suit by the person aggrieved. In view of the
discussions aforesaid, I do not find any force in this revision,
which is, therefore, dismissed. Revision dismissed.
15. Similar views have also been taken by the High Court of Kerala in the
case of Thampi Chettiar Arjunan Chettiar vs. State and another
reported in 1995 Criminal Law General 1185, High Court of
Bombay in the case reported in 2007 SCC Online Bombay 1214
and Allahabad High Court also in the case of Vishnu Kumar
Agrawal vs. State of U.P. and others reported in 2022 SCC Online
All 1766.
16. In light of the above legal position now this Court is examining the
finding of the Appellate Court while relying upon the seizure memo and
memorandum statement to disentitle the applicant in claiming
ownership of the seized article is justified or not.
17. From perusal of the impugned order, it is quite vivid, that the Appellate
Court has taken into consideration the seizure memo (Ex.P-4) wherein
it has been mentioned that the articles were seized from the applicant
and has also taken into consideration the seizure memo of the other
co-accused (Ex.P-1 to Ex.P-3) and has further taken into consideration
question No. 2 and 4 which have been asked from the applicant while
examining under Section 313 of the CrPC wherein he has given reply
that he does not know regarding his signature in the seizure memo

10 / 10
which clearly proved that he has never claimed ownership of the article
seized from him.
18. Even applicant-accused in his statement recorded under Section 313
CrPC has not stated anything regarding ownership of the property
seized as well as seizure of the property from him as reflected from the
records and there is no whisper by the applicant about the ownership of
the seized articles. Thus it is quite vivid, that the applicant has nowhere
claimed ownership of the property when the occasion was available to
him, therefore, I am of the view that the learned Appellate Court has not
committed illegality in dismissing the appeal filed by the applicant.
Consequently, the impugned orders dated 10.02.2020 passed by the
learned Judicial Magistrate Koria wherein in paragraph-17 it was
directed for confiscation of seized gold as affirmed by the learned
Appellant Court First Additional Sessions Judge, Manendragarh in CRA
No. 34 of 2020 decided on 12.01.2022 does not suffer from perversity,
illegality or the learned Courts below have not transgressed its
jurisdiction which warrants interference by this Court while exercising
revisional jurisdiction.
19. Consequently, the instant revision sens merit and is liable to be
dismissed. Accordingly, it is dismissed.
Sd/-
(Narendra Kumar Vyas)
Judge
Santosh