Chhattisgarh HC Upholds Confiscation Of 36g Gold From Acquitted Man Who Never Claimed It As His At Trial

Police seized 36 grams of melted gold from Pappu @ Madhav Soni during an investigation into allegations that co-accused had stolen jewellery from train passengers and sold it to him

The trial court acquitted the accused of the charged offences but ordered the gold confiscated to the State, reasoning that the applicant had not claimed ownership.

The appellate court affirmed that order.

In revision, the applicant argued that he owned the gold and had produced purchase-and-sale documents; the State opposed interference.

Section 452 CrPC empowers a criminal court, at the conclusion of an inquiry or trial, to order the disposal of property by delivery, confiscation, destruction, or otherwise; the order is summary and does not finally determine civil title

The court relied on Mahesh Kumar v. State of Rajasthan, 1990 Supp SCC 541, for the principle that an accused’s statement leading to discovery may be considered when deciding the disposal of property under Section 452 CrPC.

It also referred to Section 27 of the Evidence Act and Neelu @ Nilesh Kosti v. State of Madhya Pradesh, 2026 INSC 173, on the admissibility of information distinctly related to a fact discovered.

The court considered the seizure and memorandum materials, including the co-accused’s statements that they had sold stolen gold to the applicant, as relevant to determining entitlement to possession under Section 452 CrPC.

It also relied on the appellate court’s consideration of the seizure memo and the applicant’s answers under Section 313 CrPC: the applicant did not affirm ownership or otherwise claim the seized gold when questioned.

On that record, the court held that the applicant had not established a claim to the property and found no perversity, illegality, or jurisdictional error in the courts below’ orders.

It dismissed the criminal revision, leaving in force the order confiscating the 36 grams of gold.