Return of seized property documents allowed where investigation no longer justified retention and documents were not relied on against the accused.

Property documents seized during investigation were found to belong to the petitioner, and no acceptable reason was shown for their continued retention by the investigating agency. As the documents were not among those proposed to be relied on in the committal and supply-of-documents process, the High Court treated continued custody as unjustified and recognised the petitioner's protected right to hold them. Prior judicial directions in parallel proceedings also supported release. The court therefore directed return of the seized property documents through the trial court, subject to an undertaking to produce them whenever required.

---

---

Issues: Whether the petitioner was entitled to return of seized property documents under the inherent powers of the High Court.

Analysis: The documents admittedly belonged to the petitioner and had been seized during investigation. They were not included among the documents proposed to be relied on against the accused under the committal and supply-of-documents process. No acceptable reason was shown for continued retention of the petitioner's documents by the investigating agency. The order also noted that the petitioner's right to hold property documents is legally protected and that prior judicial directions had already required their return in parallel proceedings.

Conclusion: The petitioner was entitled to return of the seized property documents, and the High Court directed their release through the trial court on an undertaking to produce them when required.

---