Scope of Section 451 CrPC is Limited to Interim Custody; It Cannot Function as a Pre-Trial Confiscation Order

On June 3, 2018, the police raided the petitioner’s house in Munger based on a tip regarding an illegal lottery business.

They seized Nagaland State Lottery tickets, equipment, and two bags of currency totaling approximately Rs. 50.53 lakhs.

The search was witnessed only by police sub-inspectors, despite being in a populated locality.

The petitioner filed an application under Section 451 CrPC for the release of his individual share of the seized cash (Rs. 19.50 lakhs plus Rs. 2.30 lakhs in mutilated notes), submitting Income Tax Returns (ITR) and balance sheets showing the seized amount as an asset in police custody.

The trial court and the revisional court rejected the application, doubting the proportionality of the income to the seized amount.

The court primarily applied Section 451 of the Code of Criminal Procedure (CrPC), which governs the interim custody and disposal of property pending trial to prevent loss or deterioration.

It emphasized Section 100(4) of the CrPC, which mandates that officers conducting a search must call upon two or more independent and respectable inhabitants of the locality to witness the search.

Furthermore, the court considered Section 7 of the Lotteries (Regulation) Act, 1998, noting that the prosecution erroneously cited a non-existent Section 20 of the same Act.

The High Court found that the lower courts misdirected themselves by treating a Section 451 application as a final adjudication of title or a confiscation proceeding.

The court noted that the petitioner had provided ITRs and balance sheets acknowledged by the Income Tax Department, which specifically listed the seized cash as an asset and proved the existence of a wholesale spice business.

The court highlighted a critical procedural lapse: the police failed to involve independent witnesses as required by Section 100(4) CrPC, a safeguard that "goes to the root of the search".

Additionally, the court observed that since the police had no objection to the release and the currency had been stagnant in the Malkhana for over eight years, the risk of theft or demonetization outweighed any justification for continued retention.

It held that Section 451 CrPC does not contemplate a pre-trial verdict on whether money is "tainted" if a legitimate claimant offers security.

The Court ordered the release of Rs. 19,50,000 and the mutilated notes (Rs. 2,30,000) subject to the petitioner furnishing a personal bond and surety of like amount, re-photographing the currency, and providing a written undertaking not to alienate the funds.

The trial court was directed to implement these orders within four weeks.