The Karnataka High Court has reaffirmed the binding nature of superior court directions under Sections 497 and 503 of the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita (BNSS), 2023, while setting aside a Sessions Court order that denied interim custody of seized silver articles and cash to complainants. The judgment underscores that once a higher court directs release of seized property, lower courts cannot revisit the merits of the application and must comply expeditiously after verifying ownership documents.
Background & Facts
The Dispute
The petitioners, comprising 17 businessmen from Salem, Tamil Nadu, filed a complaint (Crime No. 113/2024) alleging offences under Section 310(2) of the Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita (BNS) against four accused persons. During investigation, the police seized movable properties including:
- Silver articles weighing over 390 kg
- Cash amounting to Rs. 17,41,910
- A vehicle
The seized properties were claimed by the petitioners as their lawful possessions. The police filed a charge sheet (CC No. 234/2025), which was later committed to the Sessions Court as SC No. 194/2025.
Key Facts
- 28.09.2024: Properties seized under PF No. 70/2024 by Kora Police Station
- 22.11.2024: Magistrate rejected petitioners' application under Sections 497 and 503 of BNSS seeking interim custody
- 20.02.2025: Sessions Court confirmed the Magistrate's order in Crl.R.P. No. 107/2024
- 21.07.2025: Karnataka High Court allowed Crl.P. No. 4339/2025, setting aside lower court orders and directing interim custody of the seized properties to the petitioners after verifying documents
- 04.10.2025: Trial court refused to accept petitioners' request for custody despite producing invoices, bills, and receipts
- 23.01.2026: Sessions Court allowed Crl.R.P. No. 77/2025, setting aside the trial court's order and directing release of properties as per High Court's directions
- 12.02.2026: Sessions Court passed the impugned order in SC No. 194/2025, rejecting the petitioners' application for custody under Sections 497 and 503 of BNSS
Procedural History
- 15.06.2024: FIR registered (Crime No. 113/2024) for offences under Section 310(2) BNS
- 28.09.2024: Properties seized under PF No. 70/2024
- 22.11.2024: Magistrate rejected interim custody application
- 20.02.2025: Sessions Court dismissed revision petition (Crl.R.P. No. 107/2024)
- 21.07.2025: High Court allowed Crl.P. No. 4339/2025, directing interim custody
- 04.10.2025: Trial court refused custody request in CC No. 234/2025
- 23.01.2026: Sessions Court allowed Crl.R.P. No. 77/2025, directing release of properties
- 12.02.2026: Sessions Court passed impugned order in SC No. 194/2025 rejecting custody application
- 29.04.2026: Present criminal petition filed under Section 482 CrPC
Relief Sought
The petitioners sought:
- Quashing of the impugned order dated 12.02.2026 passed in SC No. 194/2025
- Direction to the trial court to release the seized silver articles (390+ kg) and cash (Rs. 17,41,910) to their interim custody
- Any other relief deemed fit by the Court
The Legal Issue
The central question was whether a Sessions Court can refuse to comply with a High Court's binding direction under Sections 497 and 503 of BNSS to release seized property to the complainants after verifying ownership documents, and whether such refusal amounts to a review or reconsideration of a concluded order.
Arguments Presented
For the Petitioners
- The impugned order directly contravened the High Court's explicit directions in Crl.P. No. 4339/2025 dated 21.07.2025, which had attained finality
- The trial court failed to provide a fair opportunity to produce additional documents, violating principles of natural justice
- The GST certificates produced were digitally authenticated, bearing barcodes and digital signatures, serving as conclusive proof of proprietorship
- The continued retention of silver articles and cash caused severe and irreparable business loss
- The Sessions Court lacked power to reconsider or review the High Court's concluded order
For the Respondent-State
- There was a mismatch between the properties sought to be released and the documents produced, justifying the lower courts' rejection of the petitioners' claim
The Court's Analysis
The Court critically examined the Sessions Court's impugned order and found it legally unsustainable for multiple reasons:
-
Binding Nature of Superior Court Directions: The High Court emphasized that its earlier order in Crl.P. No. 4339/2025 dated 21.07.2025, as well as the Sessions Court's subsequent order in Crl.R.P. No. 77/2025 dated 23.01.2026, had attained finality and were binding on all subordinate courts. The Sessions Court was not entitled to revisit or reconsider these concluded orders.
"The Sessions Court has failed to consider and appreciate that having regard to the undisputed fact that the application for custody of the properties having been allowed by this Court in Crl.P.No.4339/2025 dated 21.07.2025 and reiterated by the Sessions Court itself in Crl.R.P.No.77/2025 dated 23.01.2026 and both the orders having attained finality and become conclusive and binding upon the Sessions Court, the Sessions court was not entitled to reconsider / review / revisit the said orders nor the application filed by the petitioners all over again by passing the impugned order which deserves to be quashed on this ground also."
-
Guidelines for Release of Seized Property: The Court relied on the Supreme Court's guidelines in Sunderbhai Ambalal Desai vs. State of Gujarat (AIR 2003 SC 638) and the Karnataka High Court's directions in Shri Vishal Ramesh Khatwani vs. State of Karnataka (Crl.RP.No.210/2024), which mandate expeditious disposal of applications for interim custody. Key principles include:
- Seized property should not be retained unnecessarily; custody should be granted after verifying ownership documents
- Detailed panchnama, photographs, and security bonds should be taken before release
- For valuable articles like gold and silver, custody should ordinarily be granted to the claimant unless required for investigation
- Lower courts must ensure proper infrastructure for preservation of seized property
-
Role of Lower Courts: The Court held that the Sessions Court's role was limited to verifying the documents produced by the petitioners and releasing the properties, which were undisputedly seized from the petitioners' vehicle. The Sessions Court erred in refusing to accept the petitioners' documents and reconsidering the merits of the application despite binding superior court directions.
-
Natural Justice and Fair Opportunity: The petitioners were denied a fair opportunity to produce additional documents, which violated principles of natural justice. The Court noted that the trial court's refusal to accept digitally authenticated GST certificates was unjustified.
The Verdict
The Court allowed the petition and passed the following orders:
- The impugned order dated 12.02.2026 passed in SC No. 194/2025 by the VI Additional District and Sessions Judge, Tumakuru, was set aside
- The Sessions Court was directed to release the seized silver articles and cash to the petitioners immediately upon receipt of a copy of this order, subject to the following conditions:
- Photographs and videography of the properties/articles must be taken prior to release
- The petitioners must execute indemnity bond(s) in favour of the Sessions Court
- The petitioners must produce the properties/articles as and when required by the Sessions Court and shall not alter their nature or character
What This Means For Similar Cases
Superior Court Directions Are Binding and Non-Revisitable
- Once a superior court (High Court or Supreme Court) directs release of seized property under Sections 497 or 503 of BNSS, lower courts cannot revisit the merits of the application
- Lower courts must comply expeditiously after verifying ownership documents; refusal to do so amounts to contempt of the superior court's order
- Practitioners should argue that any attempt by lower courts to reconsider concluded orders violates the doctrine of finality and hierarchy of courts
Documentary Evidence and Digital Authentication Suffice for Custody
- Digitally authenticated documents (e.g., GST certificates with barcodes and digital signatures) serve as conclusive proof of ownership for interim custody
- Lower courts cannot reject such documents merely on technical grounds (e.g., calling them "xerox copies")
- Petitioners should insist on fair opportunity to produce additional documents if initially rejected
Conditions for Release Must Be Proportionate
- Courts may impose indemnity bonds and security conditions, but these must be reasonable and proportionate to the value of the seized property
- Photographs and videography of seized articles are mandatory before release to prevent disputes over their condition
- Practitioners should ensure that compliance timelines are strictly adhered to by investigating agencies to prevent unnecessary retention of property
