Orissa High Court
B. Badri Prasad Patra @ Rao @ vs State Of Odisha on 12 September, 2025
Author: Biraja Prasanna Satapathy
Bench: Biraja Prasanna Satapathy
IN THE HIGH COURT OF ORISSA AT CUTTACK
CRLA No. 891 of 2025
B. Badri Prasad Patra @ Rao @ ..... Appellant
P. Badriprasad Patra Mr. L. Achari, Advocate
-versus-
State of Odisha ..... Respondent
Mr. C.K. Pradhan, AGA
CORAM:
THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE BIRAJA PRASANNA SATAPATHY
ORDER
12.09.2025 Order No.01 I.A. No. 1969 of 2015
1. This matter is taken up through hybrid mode.
2. Heard learned counsel appearing for the Parties.
3. Considering the grounds taken, the delay in filing the appeal is condoned.
4. I.A. accordingly stands disposed of.
(BIRAJA PRASANNA SATAPATHY) Judge
02. I.A. No. 1968 of 2025
1. Heard learned counsel appearing for the Parties.
2. This I.A. has been filed seeking dispensing with the filing of certified copy of the impugned judgment.
3. Considering the grounds taken, the prayer made in the I.A. is allowed. Filing of certified copy of the impugned judgment is dispensed with.
4. I.A. stands disposed of.
(BIRAJA PRASANNA SATAPATHY) Judge Page 1 of 9. 03. CRLA No. 891 of 2025
1. On the oral prayer made by the learned ocunsel appearing for the Appellant, he is permitted to correct the description of the G.R. Case No. as G.R. Case No. 404 of 2006 in place of G.R. Case No. 404 of 2008 in the body of the Petition as well as in the prayer portion of the brief.
2. Heard learned counsel appearing for the Parties.
3. The present appeal has been filed by the Appellant challenging the direction contained in the impugned judgment dtd.22.11.2011 of the learned Adhoc Addl. Sessions Judge, FTC, Aska, Ganjam in S.T. Case No. 20/2010 (PF)/83 of 2008 GDC, wherein while disposing the matter, a direction has been issued to confiscate the stolen property i.e. the seized silver ornaments and silver bars to the State Government.
4. It is the case of the Appellant that after initiation of the proceeding in Aska P.S. Case No. 282 of 2006, the alleged stolen properties along with the silver ornaments and silver bars were seized from the possession of the Appellant on 19.03.2007 with preparation of a seizure list. Appellant was also arrested on the said date and faced trial in S.T. Case No. 20/2010 (PF) in the file of learned Ad hoc Addl. Sessions Judge (FTC), Aska, Ganjam after the trial was split up. Appellant though faced the trial for the offence under Sec. 394/411 of the IPC, but he was acquitted vide judgment dtd.22.11.2011. But while so acquitting the Appellant, a direction was issued to confiscate the seized silver bar and silver ornaments to the State inter alia on the ground that there is no clear evidence regarding ownership of the stolen properties and no such claim has been made in that regard. Appellant is aggrieved by such direction of Page 2 of 9. the learned trial court, so contained in the impugned judgment and is before this Court in the appeal in question.
4.1. It is contended that subsequent to his acquittal vide the impugned judgment, Appellant filed a petition under Sec. 452 Cr.P.C. in the file of learned Addl. Sessions Judge, Aska, Ganjam for release of the seized silver bar and ornaments so siezed vide seizure list dt.19.03.2007 from the Appellant, which was registered as Misc. Case No. 01 of 2013.
4.2. It is contended that learned Addl. Sessions Judge, Aska, Ganjam vide order dtd.08.12.2017 while disposing the misc. Case, observed that since learned Ad hoc Addl. Sessions Judge (FTC), Aska, Ganjam while acquitting the Appellant vide his judgment dtd.22.11.2011 in S.T. Case No. 20 of 2010 (P.F.), has directed for confiscation of the stolen article to the State, the Court is not competent to pass any order for release of the seized articles in favour of the Appellant. Direction contained in Para 8 of the order dtd.08.12.2017 reads as follows:-
"8. Since property disposal order has already been passed by the then Adhoc Addl. Sessions Judge (FTC), Aska vide his judgment dt.22.11.2011 in S.T. 20(PF)/2010 directing confiscation of the seized property to the State Govt. and the said Court was later on converted to permanent Court of Addl. Sessions Judge, Aska (the present Court) and both the Courts being of concurrent jurisdiction, the present Misc. Case and the petition as aforesaid by Simanchal Nayak could not have been filed before this Court as any order passed on thsoe petitions, would amount to revision of own order which is not permissible under law. In view of my above discussions the petition U/s. 452 Cr.P.C. filed by P. Badri Prasad Patro @ Rap and the petition filed by Simanchal Nayak being devoid of any merit, stands dismissed."Page 3 of 9.
4.3. Learned counsel appearing for the Appellant contended that challenging such order passed in Misc. Case No. 01/2013 on 08.12.2017, Appellant originally approached this Court by filing CRLA No. 314 of 2018. But subsequently, the present appeal was filed taking into account the impugned direction contained in the judgment dt.08.12.2017 and the observation made in Misc. Case No. 01/2013 vide Para 8.
4.4. It is contended that the seized articles i.e. silver bar and silver ornaments were seized from the possession of the Appellant with preparation of the seizure memo on 19.03.2007 and Appellant was also arrested for having been in possession of the stolen property. However, Appellant after his release on bail vide order dtd.19.06.2007, moved an application before the learned JMFC, Aska on 19.06.2007 itself under Sec. 457 of the Cr.P.C., with a prayer to release the seized articles in his favour so seized on 19.03.2007. Learned JMFC vide order dtd.10.07.2007 while was not inclined to release his property, directed to keep it in the interim custody of the Court till disposal of the trial. Copy of order dtd.10.07.2007 reads as follows:-
"The case record is put up today for passing necessary orders on the petition dated 19/06/2007. Heard the learned counsels of both the parties at length on 07.07.2009. The learned counsel for the petitioner submitted that the police had seized some silver bars and silver ornaments from the petitioner forcibly although the same was accounted property of the petitioner. In support of his contention the learned counsel filed purchase receipts, sale receipts account of silver purchased and sold VAT returns, Tax Voucher Silver test report for the two bars of silver etc. The learned counsel submitted that there are chances of mis-appropriation by the police and the custody of the either the police or Court is not safe. So he prayed for Page 4 of 9. releasing the seized properties in his favour. In support of his submission, learned counsel relied on a decision passed by the Hon'ble Apex Court in the Sunder Bhai Ambala Desai Vs. State of Gujarat in (2003 ) 204 CRSC 444.
On the other hand the leaned APP submitted that the Petitioner is one of the accused persons in this case. That apart the alleged seized stolen property had been identified by the Complainant in the TI parade conducted in respect of the said property. So he prayed for rejection of the petition filed by the petitioner under Section 457 CrPC.
After hearing the submission at length, it is noticed that seized property was alleged to have been stolen out of the possession of the complainant and was seized from the possession of the Petitioner-accused.
The seized stolen property was subjected to TI parade and the same was identified by the complainant. On the other hand, the petitioner has filed documents to establish his claim over the property. But the same has no evidentiary value and is subjected to proof during trial. It is pertinent to note that even if the property is released it cannot be put to any use, except being preserved until the final disposal of the case as the production of the proper during the trial cannot be sealed out in a case of this nature where there are several claims. Taking of the aforesaid facts into account, I am not intend to release the property in favour of the Petitioner. Rather, I believe that if the property is kept in the interim custody of the Court, no harm or prejudice would be caused to the Petitioner. The Petition is thus rejected. The I.O is directed to hand over the seized valuable to the interim custody of the Court by 11.07.2007 as TI parade in respect of the property is already over and I do not find any plausible necessity on the part of the I.O to retain the same. Put on 11.07.2007 for further orders.
Extract tract of this order be served on the I.O."Page 5 of 9.
4.5. Learned counsel appearing for the Appellant contended that since Appellant vide Judgment dtd.22.11.2011 has been acquitted for the offence under Sec. 394/411 of the I.P.C., the seized articles so seized vide seizure list dtd.19.03.2007 from the possession of the Appellant cannot be treated as the stolen property, which was received by the Appellant and thereby incurring the offence under Sec. 411 of the I.P.C. But on the face of such clear acquittal of the Appellant for the offence under Sec. 394/411 of the I.P.C., learned trial court while acquitting the Appellant vide judgment dtd.22.11.2011 directed to confiscate the stolen articles so seized from the Appellant on 19.03.2007 to the State Govt. on the ground that there is no clear evidence regarding the ownership of the stolen property and no such claim has been made for such release.
4.6. It is contended that on the ground that the Appellant is the receiver of the stolen property, the silver bar and silver ornaments were seized from the possession of the Appellant on 19.03.2007 with preparation of a seizure list. After his acquittal for the offence under Sec. 394/411 of the I.P.C., the observation made by the learned trial Judge that there being no clear evidence regarding the ownership of the stolen property, is completely misconceived and not sustainable in the eye of law. Once the Appellant was acquitted for the offence under Sec. 394/411 of the I.P.C., it is to be presumed that the Appellant has not received the stolen property and the property so seized from his possession on 19.03.2007 belong to him. It is accordingly contended that necessary direction be issued to the learned Addl. Sessions Judge, Aska, Ganjam to release the seized articles so seized from the possession of the Appellant on 19.03.2007.
Page 6 of 9.5. Learned Addl. Govt. Advocate on the other hand contended that while acquitting the Appellant for the offence under Sec. 394/411 of the I.P.C. vide judgment dtd.22.11.2011, since the learned trial court found that ownership over the seized articles has not been clearly established, learned trial court directed for confiscation of the seized articles to the State.
5.1. It is also contended that since during trial of the matter in S.T. Case No. 20/2010 (P.F.), Appellant failed to substantiate his claim over the seized property so seized vide seizure list dtd.19.03.2007, no illegality or irregularity can be found with the impugned direction. It is accordingly contended that the appeal deserves no merit and liable for dismissal.
6. To the submission made by the learned Addl. Govt. Advocate, learned counsel appearing for the Appellant contended that the seized articles so seized vide seizure list dtd.19.03.2007 since was made from the possession of the Appellant and on the ground that Appellant is the receiver of the stolen property, he was implicated for the offence under Sec. 411 of the I.P.C.. But since in the trial Appellant was given a clean acquittal for the offence under Sec. 394/411 of the IPC, the observation of the learned trial court that there is no clear evidence regarding ownership of the stolen property, requires interference of this Court and so also the direction to confiscate the same to the State Government.
6.1. It is also contended that claim of the Appellant for release of the seized articles in his favour in Misc. Case No. 01/2013 since was disposed of by the learned Addl. Sessions Judge vide order dtd.08.12.2017 with an observation that the said court is not competent to pass any order on the face of the direction issued vide Page 7 of 9. the impugned judgment, the matter which is the subject matter in Misc. Case No. 01/2013, requires a fresh adjudication by the learned Addl. Sessions Judge, Aska, Ganjam.
7. Having heard learned counsel appearing for the Parties and considering the submission made, this Court finds that after initiation of the proceeding in Aska P.S. Case No. 282 dtd.02.11.2006 corresponding to G.R. Case No. 404/2006 in the file of learned JMFC, Aska, the present Appellant on the ground that he has received the stolen property was arrested on 19.03.007 and the articles were seized from him vide seizure list dtd.19.03.2007. The Appellant was arrayed as an accused and faced the trial for the offence under Sec. 394/411 of the I.P.C..
7.1. As found from the record, prayer of the Appellant for release of the stolen articles was not entertained by the learned JMFC, Aska vide his order dtd.10.07.2007 and the seized articles were kept in the interim custody of the Court.
7.2. As further found, in the split up trial in S.T. No. 20/2010 (P.F.), Appellant was acquitted for the offence under Sec. 394/411 of the I.P.C.. But while so acquitting the Appellant vide the impugned judgment in question, learned trial court on the ground that no claim has been made regarding ownership of the seized property and there being no clear evidence regarding such ownership of the stolen property, directed to confiscate the same to the State.
7.3. From the record, it is found that various articles were seized from the possession of the Appellant on 19.03.2007 on the ground that those are stolen articles, with preparation of the seizure list and Appellant after his release on bail on 19.06.2007 raised a claim for release of the seized articles in his favour before the learned JMFC, Page 8 of 9. Aska. But such a prayer was rejected vide order dtd.10.07.2007 on the ground that during trial of the matter, the seized articles cannot be released.
7.4. Therefore, the view taken by the learned Ad hoc Addl. Sessions Judge that no claim has been made for release of the stolen property, as per the considered view of this Court, is contrary to the materials available on record and it is a misconceived one. Since after release of the Appellant on bail on 19.06.2007 Appellant raised his claim for release of the seized articles so seized on 19.03.2007 in his favour, it cannot be held that there is no claim to the seized property. Not only that once the Appellant has been acquitted for the offence under Sec. 394/411 of the IPC, the articles seized from his possession with preparation of the seizure list dt.19.03.2007, cannot be held that ownership of the article has not been proved.
7.5. Therefore, the ground on which the direction has been issued to confiscate the seized articles to the State Government vide the impugned judgment dt.22.11.2011, as per the considered view of this Court is not sustainable in the eye of law. Therefore, this Court is inclined to quash the direction so far as it relates to confiscation of the seized articles to the State Government. While quashing the said direction, this Court directs learned Addl. Sessions Judge, Aska, Ganjam to rehear the matter in Misc. Case No. 01 of 2013 and take a fresh decision in accordance with law within a period of three (3) months from the date of receipt of this order.
8. The appeal accordingly stands disposed of.
Signature Not Verified Digitally Signed (BIRAJA PRASANNA SATAPATHY) Signed by: SNEHANJALI PARIDA Judge Reason: Authentication Sneha Location: High Court of Orissa, Cuttack Date: 15-Sep-2025 11:05:55 Page 9 of 9.