Ownership of seized valuables must be proved by credible evidence; unsupported claims over articles found at connected premises were rejected.

Ownership of seized jewellery and wrist-watches was not proved by the appellants, so the retention order was sustained. The Tribunal held that articles recovered from premises connected with the main accused could not be released on bare assertions that they were streedhan or personal belongings, especially where no documentary proof of purchase or other reliable title evidence was produced. The surrounding circumstances and statements on record also did not support the ownership claims. In the absence of credible proof of title, interference with the impugned order was unwarranted and the connected appeals failed.

---

---

Issues: Whether the appellants established ownership of the jewellery and wrist-watches seized from the premises connected with the main accused so as to warrant interference with the order confirming retention and rejecting impleadment.

Analysis: The challenge was founded on claims that the seized jewellery constituted the personal streedhan of one appellant and that the wrist-watches belonged to the other appellants. The Tribunal found that the articles were recovered from premises associated with the main accused, not from the appellants' own residences, and that the ownership claims were not supported by credible material. The appellants failed to produce documentary proof of purchase or other reliable evidence to substantiate title, while the surrounding circumstances and statements on record did not support their version.

Conclusion: The appellants failed to prove ownership of the seized valuables, and the order confirming retention and rejecting their claims was upheld.

Final Conclusion: No interference was warranted in the impugned order, and the connected appeals did not succeed.

Ratio Decidendi: A claimant seeking release of seized property must establish ownership by credible evidence, and unsupported assertions over articles found at premises linked to the accused are insufficient to displace the retention order.

---