Facts
The dispute concerned interim custody of one Bolero Pick-up, three excavators and one Ashok Leyland tipper. The appellant, Director of M/s Pure Minerals, claimed that the vehicles belonged to his company and were forcibly taken away by the respondents. The respondent company alleged that the appellant had misappropriated company funds to purchase the vehicles in his own company's name. During investigation, the vehicles were seized, and both parties sought interim custody under S.451 and S.457 CrPC. The High Court granted custody to the respondent company, which the appellant challenged before the Supreme Court.
Issues Framed
(a) Whether the appellant or the respondent company was entitled to interim custody of the seized vehicles under S.451 and S.457 CrPC?
Court's Reasoning
(a) Scope of S.451 and S.457 CrPC
The Court held that S.451 and S.457 CrPC confer discretion on the Court to grant interim custody to the person best entitled to possession. The purpose is to preserve the property from deterioration and ensure its availability during trial. The Court does not adjudicate title, which is a matter for the competent civil forum. It relied upon N. Madhavan v. State of Kerala and Sunder Bhai Ambalal Desai v. State of Gujarat. (Paras 27–31).
(b) Registration certificate not conclusive
The Court rejected the appellant's argument that custody must necessarily follow the registration certificate. It held that the registration certificate is only an evidentiary circumstance and not conclusive of entitlement to interim possession. The Court must consider all surrounding circumstances. (Paras 32–33).
(c) Application to the facts
The Court found several circumstances favouring the respondent company: the vehicles were seized from its operational site; they had continuously remained in its use; the appellant had executed an undertaking permitting the company to operate the vehicles until settlement of accounts; and the loan instalments for the vehicles had been paid from the respondent company's account. These factors outweighed the appellant's reliance on the registration certificates. Questions regarding ownership, alleged forgery and resignation required evidence and were left open for trial. (Paras 34–37).
Held
The appeals were dismissed. Interim custody of the vehicles rightly remained with the respondent company. The Court clarified that its observations were confined only to interim custody and would not affect the determination of ownership or other disputes in pending proceedings. (Paras 38–40).
Ratio
While exercising powers under S.451 and S.457 CrPC, the Court makes only a prima facie assessment of who is best entitled to interim possession. Registration certificates alone do not determine interim custody, and title disputes must be decided separately in appropriate proceedings.
Relevant Para
30. The thread of reasoning emerging from the above is that the limited object of these provisions is to ensure that property seized in the course of criminal proceedings does not suffer waste, misuse, or deterioration, and that it remains available for production before the Court as and when required. The exercise of this power requires the Court to make only a prima facie assessment of who is best entitled to possession, having regard to the nature of the property, the circumstances of seizure and the material placed before it. It does not comprise an adjudication of ownership, which falls generally within the exclusive domain of a competent civil forum.
Case Details
Citation: 2026 INSC 748
Decided on: 27 July 2026
Case Title: Krishnan Narayana v. State of Andhra Pradesh & Ors.
Court: Supreme Court of India
Bench: Sanjay Karol, J.; Augustine George Masih, J.