Criminal court confiscation under Section 452(1) fails when seized property is not before the court or under its control.

Section 452(1) of the Code of Criminal Procedure permits disposal of property only if, after inquiry or trial, the property is produced before the criminal court or is otherwise in its custody or control. Foreign currency seized by customs and never brought before the Magistrate could not validly be confiscated by the criminal court, because the statutory precondition for disposal was absent. The confiscation order therefore lacked a proper legal basis and could not stand where it risked inconsistency with proceedings under the Customs Act. The confiscation order was set aside.

---

---

Issues: Whether the criminal court could order confiscation of the foreign currency under Section 452(1) of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 when the currency was not before the court and was in the custody of the customs authorities.

Analysis: Section 452(1) empowers the criminal court to make an order for disposal of property only when, after inquiry or trial, the property is produced before it or is in its custody or control. The foreign currency in question had been seized by the customs authorities and was not produced before the Magistrate or under the court's control when the confiscation order was made. The order therefore had no proper foundation under Section 452(1), and its continuance could create inconsistency with any proceedings or orders under the Customs Act.

Conclusion: The order of confiscation could not stand and was rightly set aside in favour of the appellant.

Final Conclusion: The appeal succeeded and the confiscation order made by the Magistrate and affirmed by the High Court was quashed.

Ratio Decidendi: A criminal court cannot order confiscation under Section 452(1) of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 unless the property is before it or in its custody or control at the time of disposal.

---