Supurdari (Custody/Safekeeping of Property)

The lecture I'm about to give today is about the most commonly used law in everyday matters in the world of law. About this law, what it is and where it's found, I can confidently say that even 50 percent of lawyers don't know it. The reason is the customs and usages found in every field and every area of practice. Supurdari, the word comes from 'supurd,' meaning to hand over, entrust. Applications are routinely written 'application for grant of supurdari,' with no knowledge of the actual law or procedure. Litigants don't know it, and the consequence of this is borne, in applications that deviate from routine, both by the litigant and by the lawyer, and the judge is left completely helpless in the hands of the law, not knowing what to do about it. Today I'm going to give you a complete lecture on the laws of supurdari. For my fellow lawyers, the laws of supurdari, Section 516-A, the word 'supurdari' isn't actually in the law, it's a term we've coined ourselves, and it's used so fluently now that it has practically taken on the status of law. This is Chapter 43, which deals with disposal of property, sections starting from 516 onward, giving the magistrate or the superior court the power to hand over any such property to its actual owner, or to whoever last held it, whatever object was seized, related to some crime. In simple words, if an FIR is registered about it, you can, as owner, apply to the relevant court under Section 516, saying this item was used in such-and-such crime, or my stolen item was recovered, this be given to me on supurdari. After that the magistrate requests a report from the relevant police station, and after requesting that report, if that item is no longer needed for investigation, and the magistrate is satisfied that if it just sits in the police station or the property store it risks deteriorating, its value could decrease, then that item, that object, that vehicle, whatever it is, can be given to you on supurdari. Now nowhere in these laws does it say the magistrate will demand a surety bond from you, or that the superior court will demand a surety bond from you, but there's a phrase written that the court will pass whatever order it deems fit. Now if an item is given on supurdari to the actual owner or the last owner, the magistrate needs to be satisfied that, since this is case property, and if during trial this case property needs to be produced in evidence, I need assurance that you will produce this case property in court when the court summons it. For this assurance, the court then asks you for a surety bond, a bail bond, that when the court summons you to produce this case property, you'll produce it. If you don't produce it, action will be taken against you, and this bond, this surety, will be responsible for it. Now a small debate came up here, which my associates and I discussed and I answered, that, sir, case property or a stolen article intended to be taken on supurdari is usually taken by the complainant or the injured party, so if he doesn't produce it, the loss is his own. Let me clear your mind on one thing here. First, it's not necessary that he be the complainant in the case, not necessary at all. There's a 302 case, a person takes a rented car, firing occurs, that person dies, he was renting the car, he had taken the car on rent, now the actual owner comes to collect the car, saying, sir, this person had rented my car, this incident happened, I am the owner of this car, give it to me on supurdari, that's the first answer. Second answer, and keep this in your conscience as a legal professional, that once a case is registered and investigation is complete, the challan is prepared, and after the challan is prepared it goes to court for cognizance, for trial, the owner of that case is the state, the owner of that case is the prosecution, the prosecution is the department. The complainant is not the owner of that case, the law says the complainant only assists it. So don't think that if a superior court says deposit a surety bond for this to be given to you on supurdari, whatever the item is, don't take it to mean that any injustice is being done, that a surety bond is being demanded. The surety bond is demanded for the assurance I've told you about. Now, as a matter of common understanding, when the court gives its judgment, the actual owner gets that item back. Now what I'm about to tell you: a case is registered that someone unlawfully took possession, created forged documents, and after that took unlawful possession, dispossessed me. Committed some crime under whose cover I was removed from immovable property. Section 448, property was seized, along with it anything else could apply, 420, 468, 471 could apply, 419 could also apply, even 406 could apply. Whatever crime was committed after which he took possession of that property. Now the general perception is that a criminal court can only punish for committing a crime and can do nothing else, well, my friend, read Section 522 CrPC, the criminal procedure court, it's written there quite clearly that if a crime has been committed in which a person has been dispossessed of his immovable property, and that case proceeds, cognizance is taken, the trial is completed, and after completion the accused is convicted, then both the trial court and the appellate court have the authority that, if possession was with the accused, take it back from the accused and give it to the actual owner who was the complainant, and if it's in someone else's possession, take it back from them too and give it to the plaintiff who is the actual owner. These are also powers the court has, but unfortunately they aren't used. You need to use this, if your case concludes, you're the complainant, you've been dispossessed of your property, then when the trial court is concluding, drawing its verdict, in your arguments, also request that when passing this judgment, you also grant me possession, and if the matter has gone to the appellate court, you can tell the appellate court too, sir, please restore possession to me. If you can't say it then, you can say it within one month by application after the judgment, that, sir, you've delivered this judgment, but my possession wasn't restored in it, because when this crime occurred, possession was with me, so the final outcome should be that I get possession, then you'll get that possession. This too exists in the same chapter, Disposal of Property, Chapter 43. Similarly, Section 522-A was introduced, that if the property is movable, the same law applies. Now the question in your minds might be, sir, you've told us about property included in the case. Now what about a property that isn't part of any case at all, no case has even been registered about it. Police just took it away, how do we get it back? Well, if under Section 516 or 550, where the police have some concern, property is seized, then under Section 523 of the Criminal Procedure Code, you'll knock on the court's door. There you'll state that this was seized to harass me, it was my own property. A mobile phone, suspected, sir, not stolen. Police seized it, follow the whole procedure. A police officer, seeing it as suspicious, seized a car, motorcycle, bicycle, mobile, any movable property. He'll immediately inform his officer who has the relevant authority, telling it simply. That police officer immediately informs the relevant magistrate, and if a person comes forward, he'll go and say, this was done to harass me, all this happened, I was harassed, that's why they took this property, this is my proof of ownership, I am the owner, they have no report against me, they seized me without any justification, this be released, then under Section 523 the court will release that property. I hope I have told you about supurdari.