Chattisgarh High Court
Manat Ram Poya vs State Of Chhattisgarh on 6 August, 2025
Author: Ramesh Sinha
Bench: Ramesh Sinha
1
2025:CGHC:39061-DB
NAFR
RAHUL
HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR
JHA
Digitally signed
CRA No. 1667 of 2024
by RAHUL JHA
Date: 2025.08.06
19:09:39 +0530
Manat Ram Poya S/o Rasai Poya Aged About 27 Years R/o Tadbedi, Police
Station Chhote Bethiya, District- Kanker, Chhattisgarh.
...Appellant
versus
State Of Chhattisgarh Through Station House Officer, Police Station City
Kotwali, Dhamtari, District- Dhamtari, Chhattisgarh.
Respondent(s)
(Cause-title taken from Case Information System)
For Appellant : Mr. Ashok Dixit, Advocate
For State : Mr. Hariom Rai, PL
Hon'ble Shri Ramesh Sinha, Chief Justice
Hon'ble Shri Bibhu Datta Guru, Judge
Order on Board
Per Ramesh Sinha, Chief Justice
06/08/2025
1. The instant appeal under Section 21(1) of the National Investigation
Agency (NIA) Act, 2008 has been preferred by the appellant against the
order dated 13/08/2024 passed in Special Case (N.I.A.) No. 06/2023
passed by the learned Special Judge (NIA) Act, Bilaspur (C.G.),
whereby, the appellant has been acquitted from under Section 147, 149
& 419 of the IPC and Section 10, 13 (1), 38 (2) and 39(2) of the
Prevention of Unlawful Activities Act, 1967 and Section 66 (घ) of the
Information Technology Act. However, the amount of Rs. 36,000/-
seized at the time of investigation has been directed to confiscated. Now
by the present appeal, the appellant is seeking setting-aside the
impugned judgment of para 42 wherein, the confiscation order has been
passed.
2. Facts of the case in brief is that the Police of Police Station City Kotwali,
Dhamtari received a secret information from the informer that on the
date of incident i.e. 16/012023, four-five suspicious female and male
persons spreading the thoughts of Naxali Moist in the city and nearby
areas of Dhamtari in a confidential manner. On the basis of the said
information, the police personnel made a raid and caught hold the
accused persons and on search the police Personnel an amount of Rs.
36,000/- (denomination of 500X72) from the pant/pocket of the
appellant and also one mobile of Vivo.
On completion of entire process as also the investigation, the
police submitted the charge-sheet and the trial Court examined the
prosecution witnesses and on due appreciation material available on
record, by the judgment dated 13/08/2024, the accused persons including
the petitioner have been acquitted. However, at para 42 of the impugned
judgment, the learned trial Court ordered for confiscation of Rs. 36,000/-
which has been seized from the petitioner herein. Thus, this appeal only
in respect of setting-aside para 42 of the impugned judgment and for
refund of Rs. 36000/- to him.
3. Learned counsel for the applicant would submit that the appellant has not
committed any offence and he has been falsely implicated. He would
submit that once the trial Court found that the accused has not
committed the offence and acquitted him, it ought to have refunded
amount of Rs. 36000/- which has been seized from him. He would
submit that though the mobile phone seized has been directed to be
return, but in an illegally and arbitrary manner, the amount has been
directed to be confiscated. He would submit that the applicant is a poor
person and is suffering from acute financial crises.
4. On the other hand, learned counsel would oppose the submission and
would submit that the trial Court has rightly confiscated the amount
which has been seized from the accused/petitioner herein.
5. We have heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the pleadings.
6. It is well settled that mere acquittal of an accused does not automatically
entitle him to the return of the seized property, unless the accused
satisfactorily proves that the seized amount or article legitimately
belonged to him and was unconnected with the alleged crime or
unlawful activity.
7. In the present case, though the appellant has been acquitted of the
charges, there is no material on record to show that he made any effort
during trial or even in appeal to establish ownership or lawful source of
the amount of ₹36,000/-. The appellant has not filed any application, nor
has he led any evidence to demonstrate the legitimate origin of the said
money.
8. The trial Court, after detailed consideration of the material available on
record, particularly the nature of allegations involving confidential
circulation of Naxalite ideology and circumstances under which the
amount was recovered, rightly concluded that the said amount appeared
to be connected to suspicious activities. Hence, the trial court was
justified in invoking its powers to confiscate the amount. Furthermore,
confiscation proceedings are distinct and independent of conviction, and
such powers can be exercised when the trial court finds that the property
seized is not convincingly shown to be untainted or lawfully held. In
absence of any credible explanation or proof from the appellant as to the
lawful origin or ownership of the seized amount, this Court does not find
any error or illegality in the findings of the trial Court directing
confiscation of the amount.
9. Accordingly, this Court is of the considered opinion that the appeal is
devoid of merit and does not warrant interference.
10. The appeal, being devoid of merit, is hereby dismissed. The order of
confiscation of ₹36,000/- passed by the learned Special Judge (NIA Act),
Bilaspur (C.G.) in paragraph 42 of the judgment dated 13.08.2024 in
Special Case (NIA) No. 06/2023 is affirmed.
Sd/- Sd/-
(Bibhu Datta Guru) (Ramesh Sinha)
Judge Chief Justice
Rahul/Gowri
