Owner of stolen property is entitled to its value when the property is untraceable.

The petitioner invoked the High Court’s jurisdiction under Section 528 of the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023, challenging the order dated 27 May 2026 passed by the Additional Sessions Judge-IV, Dhanbad, in M.C.A. No. 3492 of 2025 arising out of Sessions Trial No. 508 of 2025, Govindpur P.S. Case No. 283 of 2025 and G.R. No. 2757 of 2025.

The Sessions Court had rejected the petitioner’s application for release of ₹10,05,000 in cash and a mobile phone seized from him, and directed that the cash be deposited in the government treasury.

The prosecution alleged that the petitioner had sold a truck belonging to the informant and received ₹10,05,000 as its value.

The petitioner contended that the money was not proceeds from the sale of the stolen truck but had been received by his wife as advance under an agreement for sale of property. He also claimed entitlement to the seized mobile phone.

The Investigating Officer reportedly had no objection to appropriate orders regarding release of the seized articles.

The State opposed the petition, asserting that the informant, as owner of the truck, was entitled to the recovered amount and that the petitioner’s explanation regarding the alleged sale agreement was not credible.

Whether the High Court should exercise its jurisdiction under Section 528 of the BNSS, 2023, to quash the order refusing release of ₹10,05,000 seized from the petitioner?

Whether the petitioner was entitled to release of the seized cash on the basis of his claim that it represented an advance received by his wife under an agreement for sale?

Whether the petitioner was entitled to release of the seized mobile phone in the absence of material establishing his ownership?

The Court applied Section 528 of the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023, governing the High Court’s inherent jurisdiction to prevent abuse of process and secure the ends of justice.

It further applied the principle that the owner of seized or lost property is ordinarily entitled to its delivery, and where the property is lost or cannot be traced while in custody, the owner may be entitled to its value.

This principle was derived from Inter Continental Agencies Pvt. Ltd. v. Amin Chand Khanna, AIR 1980 SC 951.

The Court also proceeded on the principle that entitlement to seized property must be established by credible material and that mere possession does not conclusively establish ownership.

The Court found that the investigation prima facie indicated that the petitioner had sold the informant’s truck and realised ₹10,05,000.

The petitioner’s alternative explanation—that the money was an advance received by his wife under a sale agreement—was not accepted because the property referred to in the agreement belonged to the petitioner, not his wife, and no convincing reason was shown for the wife to have entered into such an agreement.

Applying the principle that the owner is entitled to the property or its value, the Court held that the informant had a prima facie claim to the seized amount representing the value of the truck.

The Court also noted that there was no material demonstrating that the petitioner owned the seized mobile phone.

Consequently, the Sessions Court’s refusal to release either article did not suffer from illegality warranting interference under Section 528 of the BNSS.

The explanation regarding the source of the cash was found doubtful, the informant had a prima facie entitlement to the value of the stolen truck, and the petitioner produced no material establishing ownership of the mobile phone.

Finding no illegality in the order dated 27 May 2026, the Court dismissed the criminal miscellaneous petition as meritless.