Discovery under Section 27 Evidence Act constitutes admissible evidence for property disposal under Section 452 CrPC.

The complainant, Buddha Prakash Soni, alleged that on August 15, 2003, seven accused individuals committed roadside robbery, taking 15 kg of silver, 5 tola of gold, and cash.

During the investigation, various gold and silver ornaments were recovered based on the memorandum statements of the accused under Section 27 of the Evidence Act.

Following a trial (Sessions Case No. 141/2004), all accused were acquitted by the Fourth Additional Sessions Judge, Raigarh, on June 14, 2005.

The trial court, while acquitting the accused, did not pass a specific order regarding the disposal of the seized property but directed the complainant to seek relief via a civil suit.

The complainant filed an application under Section 452 of the Cr.P.C. for the return of the property, which was rejected on July 21, 2005, primarily because a previous application under Section 457 Cr.P.C. had been rejected during the trial.

The complainant subsequently died, and his legal heirs pursued this appeal.

1. Whether the order passed by the Sessions Court declining the claim of the appellant under Section 452 Cr.P.C. and directing the pursuit of a civil remedy was legal and justified.

The court applied Section 451 of the Cr.P.C. for interim custody and Section 452 of the Cr.P.C. for the final disposal of property at the conclusion of a trial.

It relied on the principle from Rajendra Kumar Sitaram Pande v. Uttam that an order under Section 451 is "interlocutory" and does not decide final rights.

Regarding evidence, the court applied Section 27 of the Indian Evidence Act, as interpreted in Neelu @ Nilesh Kosti v. State of M.P., noting that the "discovery of fact" includes the object found and the place produced.

Crucially, it applied the doctrine from Mahesh Kumar v. State of Rajasthan, which establishes that confessional statements leading to discovery under Section 27 are admissible for the purpose of determining property disposal under Section 452 Cr.P.C., even if the accused is acquitted.

The High Court observed that Sections 451 and 452 of the Cr.P.C. operate in different spheres; the rejection of an interim application under Section 451 does not bar a final claim under Section 452 after the evidence has been fully recorded.

The court noted that during the trial, the seizure memos (Ex.P-17 to Ex.P-27) were proved, and the accused, in their Section 313 Cr.P.C. statements, did not claim ownership of the seized ornaments.

The court reasoned that since the property was recovered based on information provided by the accused (which constitutes a "guarantee of truthfulness" under Section 27 of the Evidence Act) and the accused disclaimed the property, the complainant—as the victim of the alleged theft—was the person best entitled to possession.

The trial court erred by failing to consider the seizure memos and by treating the summary nature of the proceedings as a reason to shunt the matter to a civil court when the criminal record was sufficient to establish a prima facie right to possession.

The appeal was allowed, and the impugned order dated July 21, 2005, was set aside.

The Sessions Court was directed to hand over the property detailed in seizure memos Ex.P-17 to Ex.P-20, Ex.P-23, Ex.P-24, and Ex.P-27 to the legal heirs of the appellant, subject to the execution of a supurdnama and other usual conditions to ensure the property's restoration should the order be modified on further appeal.