Rajput Vijaysinh Natwarsinh v. State of Gujarat 2025 INSC 1129 - S.451 CrPC
Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 - Section 451 - High Court allowed the release of the seized cash - Allowing appeal, SC observed: However, it is entirely possible that the said sum of money was part of some other transaction. Simply because the amount owed to him matches the amount recovered does not establish that he is the only claimant to the said amount - The appropriate ownership of the sum of money can only be determined after consideration of all evidence and having taken into account the claims and views of all the other persons that the appellant-accused has allegedly played foul with, in business. The evidence presented by respondent no. 2 to establish his claim over the said amount will have to be considered by the Court seized of trial in the matter, and then only can a proper decision be arrived at. At this stage, therefore, releasing the muddamal would be unjustified and premature. (Para 10-11)
Case Info
Case Name and Neutral Citation
- Case Name: Rajput Vijaysinh Natwarsinh v. State of Gujarat & Ors.
- Neutral Citation: 2025 INSC 1129
Coram (Judges)
- Justice Sanjay Karol
- Justice Prashant Kumar Mishra
Judgment Date
- Date: 18 September 2025
Caselaws and Citations Referred
- Sunderbhai Ambalal Desai v. State of Gujarat
- Citation: (2002) 10 SCC 283; 2003 SCC (Cri) 1943; 2002 SCC OnLine SC 934
Statutes/Laws Referred
- Indian Penal Code, 1860
- Sections 406 (Criminal breach of trust), 420 (Cheating), 120-B (Criminal conspiracy)
- Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973
- Section 451 (Order for custody and disposal of property pending trial in certain cases)
- Section 397 (Appeal/Revision powers)
- Constitution of India
- Articles 226 and 227 (Writ jurisdiction of High Courts)
Q&A
Question and Answer from the Document
Q: What was the main issue in Rajput Vijaysinh Natwarsinh v. State of Gujarat & Ors.?
A: The main issue was whether the seized cash amount of Rs. 50,00,000 (muddamal) should be released to respondent no. 2 during the pendency of the criminal trial, as ordered by the High Court, or retained until ownership is conclusively established.
Q: What were the allegations against the appellant-accused?
A: The appellant-accused, who ran Jay Gopal Trading Company, was alleged to have cheated the complainant and other merchants by not paying for castor seeds purchased, with cheques bouncing due to insufficient funds. The total disputed amount was Rs. 3,49,07,073.
Q: What did the Trial Court and Sessions Court decide regarding the release of the seized cash?
A: Both courts refused to release the cash, stating that ownership was disputed among multiple victims and the money was considered proceeds of crime. They held that releasing the cash at this stage would be premature and unjustified.
Q: What did the High Court decide?
A: The High Court allowed the release of the seized cash to respondent no. 2, reasoning that interim custody would not prejudice the prosecution and that the petitioner was lawfully entitled to claim the amount, subject to furnishing a personal bond and proper documentation.
Q: What was the Supreme Court’s final decision?
A: The Supreme Court set aside the High Court’s order, restored the lower courts’ decisions, and held that ownership of the seized cash could only be determined after considering all evidence and claims of other victims. The release of the muddamal at this stage was deemed unjustified and premature.
