Supreme Court – Daily Orders
Pravinbhai Mohanbhai vs The State Of Gujarat on 16 July, 2026
IN THE SUPREME COURT OF INDIA
CRIMINAL APPELLATE JURISDICTION
CRIMINAL APPEAL NO.130 OF 2014
PRAVINBHAI MOHANBHAI & ORS. ... APPELLANT(S)
VS.
STATE OF GUJARAT & ORS. ... RESPONDENT(S)
ORDER
1. Heard Mr. Puneet Jain, learned senior counsel
appearing for the appellants and Ms. Swati Ghildiyal
assisted by Ms. Neha Singh, learned counsel appearing
for respondent No.1-State of Gujarat.
2. In this appeal, there are 21 appellants before us.
The present appeal arises out of applications made
under Section 452 of the Code of Criminal Procedure,
1973 (for short, “CRPC”) before the Trial Court in a
Sessions Trial, for return of certain diamonds which
Signature Not Verified
Digitally signed by
ANITA MALHOTRA
Date: 2026.07.21
18:03:33 IST
were the material objects in the trial.
Reason:
1
3. Before the Trial Court, there were 14 applicants who
made the application. They are appellant Nos. 1 to 14
herein. The appellant Nos. 15 to 21 were not the
original applicants before the Trial Court but they joined
the original 14 applicants in the High Court along with
16 other individuals. So the net result was when there
were 14 applicants before the Trial Court, there were 37
before the High Court and before this Court there are
21, the original 14 as were before the Trial Court and 7
additional applicants before the High Court.
4. The brief facts are that a First Information Report
was lodged on 26th May, 2003 at Maidharpura Police
Station for the offences punishable under Sections 302,
364, 394, 397, 201 and 120-B of the Indian Penal Code,
1860 (for short, ‘the IPC‘). This resulted in registration
of case being CR-I 118 of 2003. The FIR/criminal case
pertained to the alleged murder of one Nagjibhai
Raghavbhai Dholiya who was working as a diamond
2
broker in Surat Diamond Market.
5. The facts of the criminal case are directly not
relevant for the controversy. During the pendency of
the trial, the applications for return of Muddamal
articles 10 to 50, 52, 57, 59 to 64, 66 to 80, 83 and 84
which were diamonds, which came to be auctioned.
The Trial Court, while disposing of Section 452
application along with the main judgment after rejecting
the claim of the applicants, recorded the following
operative order:
“Further, out of Muddamal Articles no. 10 to 50,
52, 57, 59 to 64 and 66 to 80 and 83, 84 whereby
diamonds and money have been deposited, the
diamonds be disposed by public auction and the
money recovered from auction be deposited with the
State whereas the cash amount seized may be
deposited with the State, after the appeal period is
over.”
6. Dealing with the reasoning for rejection of the
application, the Trial Court recorded that only because
the witnesses who produced the diamonds did not want
those diamonds, the diamonds could not be handed
3
over to the applicants, since there is no proof produced
to show as to how those diamonds were in the
ownership of the applicants. The relevant extract of the
finding is set out herein below:
“(147) At this stage, the accused no.1 to 14
have submitted a separate application vide Exh.256
wherein the opponents no.7 to 14 have declared that
they do not put forward their claim over the seized
diamonds and therefore, the applications no. 1 to 14
shall be handed over the diamonds as per their
application. These witnesses were examined by the
prosecution and they stated in their deposition that
their diamonds or money were not seized before the
police. Thus, the question arises is that who should
be returned those diamonds and money which were
seized. I am of the view that only because the
witnesses who produced diamonds do not want claim
those diamonds, the diamonds should not be handed
over automatically to the applicants since there is no
proof produced so as to show that those diamonds
are of ownership of the applicants. As per the
fundamental case of prosecution, the accused looted
diamonds from the deceased and they were sold to
several persons. Even though, as stated above, case
against the accused is not proved, it can be believed
that at least those diamonds were not of their
ownership and hence plea of the applicants that
diamonds should be returned to them, also cannot be
accepted. Therefore, it seems to be proper that the
diamonds seized may be auctioned and the same be
deposited with the State and the money seized be
also deposited with the State.”4
7. This order insofar as rejection of Section 452 CRPC
application is concerned was carried in appeal by the
original 14 applicants with 23 others joining them. The
High Court, by the impugned order, recorded that the
trial Court rightly came to the conclusion that in view of
the material available on record on the question of
ownership of the diamonds recovered by the Police, no
formal inquiry was required to be held. The High Court
further went on to hold that the Trial Court addressed
the issue in an appropriate manner and as such, the
High Court did not find any error in the order of the trial
Court. Further, the High Court, in paragraph 14, held
that in the event the applicants are willing to assert
their ownership of the Muddamal diamonds and
currency notes, they can do so by filing appropriate civil
proceedings. So holding, the appeal of the appellants
herein was dismissed.
5
8. Aggrieved 21 of the 37 appellants before the High
Court are in appeal before us.
9. Mr. Puneet Jain, learned senior counsel drawing
attention to Section 452 of the CRPC submits that the
Courts below totally misdirected themselves when it set
out to examine the issue of ownership, while what was
required to be seen was “entitlement to possession”.
Learned senior counsel contends that ownership and
possession are two different concepts. Learned senior
counsel further submits that none of the other
applicants/witnesses had any objection in handing over
the Muddamal diamonds to these original applicants 1
to 14 jointly and as such no further inquiry was
required.
10. On the other hand, Ms. Swati Ghildiyal, learned
counsel appearing for respondent No.1-State while
vehemently defending the order of the High Court,
contends that not a shred of evidence have been shown
6
even to demonstrate the entitlement to possession.
Learned counsel contends that merely because certain
witnesses have no objection to the handing over the
Mudammal articles, the articles could not be handed
over since under Section 452 of the CRPC, there must
be some semblance of a claim to seek entitlement of
the possession, as otherwise, in every criminal case,
any stranger could walk in and set up a claim for
handing over the Mudammal articles. Learned counsel
further contends that the High Court has adequately
protected the applicants by preserving civil remedies.
Learned counsel contends that it will be highly
hazardous to hand over such valuable property, as
before the Courts below, nothing has been established
prima facie to even claim entitlement to possession.
11. We have carefully perused the records, including
the orders of the trial Court and the High Court. We
have also considered the arguments of the learned
7
counsel for the parties.
12. We are satisfied that on the available material on
record, the ingredients of Section 452 of the CRPC not
being satisfied by the appellants, including the original
14 applicants before the Trial Court. We are also
amazed as to how when before the Trial Court, the
number of claimants was 14, it ballooned before the
High Court to 37, in one common appeal, and before us
it has shrunk back to 21.
13. Section 452 of the CRPC reads as under:
“452. Order for disposal of property at conclusion
of trial.—(1) When an inquiry or trial in any Criminal
Court is concluded, the Court may make such order as
it thinks fit for the disposal, by destruction,
confiscation or delivery to any person claiming to be
entitled to possession thereof or otherwise, of any
property or document produced before it or in its
custody, or regarding which any offence appears to
have been committed, or which has been used for the
commission of any offence.
(2) An order may be made under sub-section (1) for
the delivery of any property to any person claiming to
be entitled to the possession thereof, without any
condition or on condition that he executes a bond,
with or without securities, to the satisfaction of the
Court, engaging to restore such property to the Court
if the order made under sub-section (1) is modified or8
set aside on appeal or revision.
(3) A Court of Session may, instead of itself making
an order under sub-section (1), direct the property to
be delivered to the Chief Judicial Magistrate, who shall
thereupon deal with it in the manner provided in
sections 457, 458 and 459.
(4) Except where the property is livestock or is subject
to speedy and natural decay, or where a bond has
been executed in pursuance of sub-section (2), an
order made under sub-section (1) shall not be carried
out for two months, or when an appeal is presented,
until such appeal has been disposed of.
(5) In this section, the term “property” includes, in the
case of property regarding which an offence appears
to have been committed, not only such property as
has been originally in the possession or under the
control of any party, but also any property into or for
which the same may have been converted or
exchanged, and anything acquired by such
conversion or exchange, whether immediately or
otherwise.”
14. A careful reading of sub-Sections 1 and 2 of Section
452 reveals that for a person to maintain an application
under Section 452 of the CRPC and claim for any
property or document produced before the Trial Court or
which is in the custody of the Trial Court, the applicant
needs to establish that he is entitled to possession of
those documents or property. Though the word
“ownership” is not used in Section 452 of the CRPC, the
9
phrase employed is “entitled to possession”. Unless the
claimant establishes that a right inheres in him to
possess in law the property or document, the return of
which he is claiming, the Court will not order the return
of the property or document to the said person. In this
regard, the only argument of the learned senior counsel
for the appellants is that the other witnesses did not
have any objection for the property or document to be
handed over to the original 14 applicants. This is hardly
a legal way of establishing entitlement to possession.
The onus will be on the applicants/appellants and the
applicants/appellants have to demonstrate as to how
and on what legal basis they are setting up a claim for
possession. The right must vest in the claimant and it
cannot be inferred only due to certain others have
endorsed a no objection.
10
15. In Bharat Sanchar Nigam Limited Limited vs.
Suryanarayanan and Another, (2020) 12 SCC 637,
Justice D.Y. Chandrachud (as the learned Chief Justice
then was) lucidly explained the principle thus:
“13. …. In terms of sub-section (1) of Section 452,
when an inquiry or trial before a criminal court has
been concluded, the court is empowered to pass an
appropriate order for its disposal by destruction,
confiscation or delivery to any person claiming to be
entitled to the possession thereof or otherwise.
Entitlement postulates a right. The function which the
court exercises under Section 452 is of a judicial
nature. In making that order, the court must
undoubtedly have due regard to the
entitlement claimed by the person who seeks
the possession of the property.
19. The learned counsel appearing on behalf of the
first respondent, however, submits that in the present
case, the appellant did not move an application under
Section 452 and hence an order cannot be passed in
terms of that provision for the restoration of legal
possession to the appellant. The issue before the
Court, however, is somewhat different. The basic
issue is whether the first respondent who
moved an application for the release of the
seized property to him under Section 452 has
established a claim of entitlement.
20. Prima facie, at this stage, we are unable to find
any reasonable basis in the record for handing over
custody of the seized goods to the respondent.
During the course of the hearing, we requested
11
the learned counsel appearing on behalf of the
first respondent to indicate at least, prima
facie, some basis for the claim of title in the
acquisition of the goods or the payment which
has been made for acquiring them. As we note
from the judgment of the trial court, the claimant had
produced certain invoices between 8-2-1992 and 20-
2-1992, recovery having been effected on 21-2-1992.
The Magistrate noted that no cash receipts were
produced by the first respondent and though
vouchers were produced by CW 10, they did not
prove that they were for the purchase of the seized
goods. Nothing at all has been shown in
response to our query.”
16. We find no merit in the appeal.
17. Mr. Puneet Jain, learned Senior Counsel for the
appellants makes an alternative submission that his
civil suit remedy will be illusionary, if the property is
auctioned, in the meantime.
18. We direct that for a period of eight weeks from
today, the direction to auction the property in question
if not already made will remain stayed. It is up to the
appellants to assert their civil remedies, which civil
remedies will be decided on its own merits, including on
the question of limitation. As and when such remedies
12
are resorted to, they will be disposed of in accordance
with law.
19. The appeal is disposed of in the above terms.
..……………………………….J.
(K.V. VISWANATHAN)
…………………………………..J.
(ARUN PALLI)
NEW DELHI;
July 16, 2026.
13
ITEM NO.101 COURT NO.14 SECTION II-E
S U P R E M E C O U R T O F I N D I A
RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS
Criminal Appeal No(s). 130/2014
PRAVINBHAI MOHANBHAI & ORS. Appellant(s)
VERSUS
THE STATE OF GUJARAT & ORS. Respondent(s)
Date : 16-07-2026 This appeal was called on for hearing today.
CORAM :
HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE K.V. VISWANATHAN
HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE ARUN PALLIFor Appellant(s) :
Mr. Puneet Jain, Sr. Adv.
Mrs. Christi Jain, Adv.
Mr. B M Mangukiya, Adv.
Ms. Bela Prajapati, Adv.
Mr. Om Sudhir Vidyarhi, Adv.
Ms. Akriti Sharma, Adv.
Mr. Aditya Jain, Adv.
Mr. Siddharth Jain, Adv.
Mr. Yogit Kamat, Adv.
Ms. Pratibha Jain, AOR
For Respondent(s) :
Ms. Swati Ghildiyal, AOR
Ms. Neha Singh, Adv.
Mr. Sarad Kumar Singhania, AOR
UPON hearing the counsel the Court made the following
O R D E R
1. The appeal is disposed of in terms of the signed
order.
2. Pending application, if any, shall also stand
disposed of.
(ANITA MALHOTRA) (MANOJ KUMAR)
DEPUTY REGISTRAR COURT MASTER
(Signed order is placed on the file.)
14
