Acquittal in criminal trial does not entitle accused to seized cash without independent proof of ownership.

The victim, Sanjeev Kumar Mishra (O.P. No. 2), reported a theft of ₹4,00,000 from his house.

During the investigation, police recovered ₹3,26,000 from the petitioner’s residence.

During the trial, the court ordered the release of the seized amount to the victim, an order the petitioner never challenged.

Although the petitioner was eventually acquitted of the theft charges on November 26, 2016, due to a lack of eyewitness evidence, he subsequently filed a petition in 2017 claiming the money was his legitimate income from a land sale agreement with one Dilchand Gupta.

The Chief Judicial Magistrate (CJM), Hazaribagh, conducted an inquiry and rejected the petitioner's claim on March 6, 2019, which was later upheld by the Sessions Judge in revision on May 2, 2019.

The petitioner moved the High Court under Section 482 of the CrPC to quash these orders.

1. Whether the lower courts committed an illegality or impropriety in rejecting the petitioner's claim for the release of the seized cash.

2. Whether a petitioner can claim ownership of seized property post-acquittal when such a claim was never raised during the trial or via a challenge to previous release orders.

The Court exercised its inherent jurisdiction under Section 482 of the CrPC to evaluate the legality of the lower court orders.

A revisional court, under Section 397/401 of the CrPC, cannot re-appreciate evidence but must satisfy itself regarding the "correctness, legality, or propriety" of the order.

Section 452 of the CrPC regarding the disposal of property at the conclusion of a trial, alongside the evidentiary rules governing the finality of unchallenged interlocutory orders for the release of property.

During the original trial, the petitioner did not claim the money as his own in his Section 313 CrPC statement, nor did he cross-examine witnesses or lead defense evidence to that effect.

The CJM’s inquiry revealed significant discrepancies between the petitioner's confession (claiming he received ₹3,00,000 from a land deal) and the produced agreement (stating ₹3,50,000), as well as contradictions in witness testimony regarding note denominations.

The initial order releasing the money to the victim had attained finality as it was never challenged.

The mere fact of acquittal in the criminal case did not automatically entitle the petitioner to the cash, especially when he failed to prove its source and the recovery was linked to a confession leading to the discovery of stolen property.

The petition was dismissed, affirming the lower courts' decisions to deny the release of the ₹3,26,000 to the petitioner.