Interim custody of seized jewellery depends on judicial discretion, with production conditions and security safeguards assessed on facts.

Interim custody under Section 451 of the Code of Criminal Procedure is governed by judicial discretion, and a condition that gold ornaments must always be produced in the same condition is not mandatory in every case. The court may impose safeguards to preserve evidence and protect rival claims, but the nature of the property, prima facie entitlement, and the existence of any competing claimant must be considered. A bank guarantee may be required as security for release of valuable jewellery. The trial court was directed to reassess the production condition after permitting evidence on entitlement and the character of the articles as stock in trade.

---

---

Issues: (i) Whether a court can insist, while granting interim custody of gold ornaments and money under Section 451 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973, on their production before court in the same condition whenever directed. (ii) Whether the condition requiring a bank guarantee for release of the ornaments was justified, and what safeguards should govern release of jewellery claimed as stock in trade.

Issue (i): Whether a court can insist, while granting interim custody of gold ornaments and money under Section 451 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973, on their production before court in the same condition whenever directed.

Analysis: Section 451 confers a wide judicial discretion to make an order for proper custody of property pending trial. The arrangement is only interim, and the Court may impose appropriate safeguards to preserve evidence and protect competing claims. However, the requirement that the articles must always be produced in the same condition is not a rigid mandate in every case. The nature of the property, the evidence available, the existence of rival claims, and whether the ornaments are stock in trade are relevant factors. Where sufficient evidence shows a strong prima facie entitlement and the circumstances do not justify such a restriction, the condition need not be imposed mechanically.

Conclusion: The condition requiring production of the ornaments in the same condition cannot be treated as universally mandatory and must depend on the facts of the case.

Issue (ii): Whether the condition requiring a bank guarantee for release of the ornaments was justified, and what safeguards should govern release of jewellery claimed as stock in trade.

Analysis: A bank guarantee may be imposed as a safeguard where the articles are of substantial value. The Court also indicated that, before deciding on the production condition, the claimant should be permitted to adduce evidence to establish a strong prima facie entitlement and the trial court may verify whether there is any rival claimant. In cases involving jewellery from a shop or manufacturing unit, if the ornaments are shown to be stock in trade and there is no rival claimant, the court may decline to insist on their later production in the same condition. The trial court must therefore reassess the condition after considering the evidence and the nature of the claim.

Conclusion: The bank guarantee condition was upheld, but the condition requiring production in the same condition was left for reconsideration by the trial court after allowing evidence.

Final Conclusion: The reference was answered by recognizing judicial discretion under Section 451, upholding the security requirement, and directing the trial court to reconsider the production condition on the evidence and circumstances of the claim.

Ratio Decidendi: Under Section 451 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973, interim custody orders are governed by judicial discretion, and a condition requiring return of property in the same condition is not mandatory in every case; it depends on the nature of the property, the evidence of entitlement, and the need to protect the trial.

---