The Karnataka High Court has clarified a critical principle in criminal forfeiture proceedings: when an accused is acquitted, any amount seized and deposited during trial must be returned, regardless of prior interim orders or procedural delays. This ruling reinforces the presumption of innocence and prohibits punitive confiscation absent a valid conviction.
Background & Facts
The Dispute
The petitioner, Jagadeesh S/o Keshav Rao Vernekar, was prosecuted for offences under Sections 171E and 171F of the Indian Penal Code, 1860, relating to bribery and undue influence in connection with a local election. During investigation, the Town Police Station, Hubballi, seized ₹4,00,000/- from the petitioner under PF No.30/2013. The amount was subsequently handed over to the complainant by an interim order passed by the Trial Court while the case was pending.
Key Facts
- The petitioner was arrested and chargesheeted in connection with PF No.30/2013 on 15.02.2013
- ₹4,00,000/- was seized from the petitioner on 10.03.2013
- On 22.07.2013, the Trial Court passed an interim order directing the amount to be handed over to the complainant, subject to final outcome of trial
- The petitioner complied with the interim order and transferred the amount to the complainant
- On 18.12.2018, the Trial Court convicted the petitioner and ordered confiscation of ₹4,00,000/- to the State
- The petitioner appealed to the First Additional District and Sessions Judge, Dharwad
- On 20.01.2026, the Appellate Court allowed the appeal, acquitted the petitioner of all charges, but did not direct the release of the seized amount
- The petitioner filed this Criminal Revision Petition on 03.03.2026, which was delayed by 44 days
Procedural History
- 10.03.2013: ₹4,00,000/- seized under PF No.30/2013
- 22.07.2013: Trial Court orders interim transfer of amount to complainant
- 18.12.2018: Trial Court convicts petitioner and orders confiscation
- 20.01.2026: Appellate Court acquits petitioner but upholds confiscation of ₹4,00,000/-
- 03.03.2026: Criminal Revision Petition filed before Karnataka High Court
- 15.03.2026: I.A. No.1/2026 filed for condonation of delay
- 23.06.2026: High Court hears petition and passes order
Relief Sought
The petitioner sought release of ₹4,00,000/- seized under PF No.30/2013, arguing that since he was acquitted, the confiscation order was legally unsustainable and the amount must be returned to him.
The Legal Issue
The central question was whether the confiscation of seized funds under BNSS remains valid after the accused is acquitted, and whether the court is obligated to order the return of such funds when no conviction stands.
Arguments Presented
For the Petitioner
The petitioner’s counsel argued that the amount was seized as proceeds of alleged offence, but since the appellate court acquitted him, the legal basis for confiscation vanished. He relied on the principle that forfeiture is a penal consequence tied to conviction, and cannot survive acquittal. He further submitted that the amount had been re-deposited with the Trial Court as directed, and thus the State had no equitable claim to retain it.
For the Respondent
The State opposed the revision, contending that the amount was lawfully seized and lawfully transferred under interim order. It argued that since the amount was already paid to the complainant, its release would require a separate civil proceeding. The State also relied on procedural finality of the appellate order, which did not expressly direct return.
The Court's Analysis
The Court examined the nature of seizure and confiscation under Section 457 of the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita (BNSS), which replaces Section 457 CrPC. It noted that confiscation is not an independent power but a consequence of conviction. The Court emphasized that an acquittal nullifies the foundation of any forfeiture order, regardless of interim dispositions.
"Since the petitioner is acquitted of all charges and since it is not in dispute that the amount is recovered from the petitioner, the amount should be released in favour of the petitioner."
The Court rejected the State’s argument that the interim transfer to the complainant created a vested right. It held that interim orders are provisional and subject to final adjudication. Once the conviction is set aside, the entire chain of disposals based on it collapses. The Court further observed that the State cannot retain property without legal justification, especially when the accused has been exonerated.
The Court also noted that the petitioner had complied with the Trial Court’s direction to re-deposit the amount, thereby fulfilling his procedural obligations. The burden now lay on the Trial Court to verify the deposit and effectuate release.
The Verdict
The petition was allowed. The Court directed the Trial Court to verify whether the amount of ₹4,00,000/- has been re-deposited by the petitioner. If confirmed, the Trial Court shall release the entire amount to the petitioner without delay. No interest was awarded, and no costs were imposed.
What This Means For Similar Cases
Confiscation Cannot Survive Acquittal
- Practitioners must immediately move for return of seized funds upon acquittal, even if the amount was temporarily transferred to complainants or the State
- Any order retaining funds post-acquittal is legally unsustainable and subject to writ remedy
- Courts must treat forfeiture as a consequence of conviction, not a standalone punitive measure
Interim Dispositions Are Provisional
- Interim orders transferring seized property do not create vested rights
- Such transfers are always subject to final outcome of trial
- Post-acquittal, the original owner’s title is restored automatically
Procedural Compliance Is Key
- Petitioners must document re-deposit of seized amounts as directed by courts
- Failure to re-deposit may delay release, even upon acquittal
- Trial courts have a duty to verify compliance and act expeditiously on release orders
