What is a Superdari?
Superdari is a general process by the police to dispose of property which is related to the
offence, to the person entitled of it on surety bond provided that the person will have to
produce that property if the court thinks it is an evidence and will be helpful in the process of
trial.
Does Phone come under the ambit of the word “Property” of the provision?
Under Section 451 of the CrPC, property includes all the types of property and documents
which has been produced before the court or is under the custody of court and according to
the case. In the case State vs Tushar Sharma, the person whose mobile phone was stole by the
accused got his phone back on Superdari vide Superdarinama. So phone is considered
property under section 451.
Disposal of property at conclusion of trial
Under Section 451 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 a person is allowed to get back
the possession of the seized property temporarily. The Particular section deals with the power
of court regarding the disposal of those goods and properties for which the trial is pending.
Section 451 states that, when any property is presented before a Criminal Court during its
inquiry or trial, before the trial is completed, the court has the power to pass any order which
it thinks fit regarding the custody and disposal of the property. The court after keeping
required evidence can sell it or dispose it in case the property is subject to decay.
The court in Manjit Singh ruled out that upon conclusion of enquiry or trial, the Court may
pass an order under Section 452 CrPC for the disposal or delivery to any person claiming to
be entitled for possession thereof or otherwise and the Court may release the property
unconditionally or impose a condition of a bond with or without sureties.
In Smt. Basawa Kom Dyanmangouda Patil v. State of Mysore and Anr , it has been observed
that : “The object of the provisions in the Code is that the property which has been the
subject-matter of an offence is seized by the police, ought not to be retained in the custody of
the Court or of the police for any time longer than what is absolutely necessary.
In the case Jakir Ahmed Vs State of Assam the Investigating Officer was not able to show
that the property seized is either required for further investigation of the case or that handing
over of the property to the registered owner will have any adverse impact in the progress of
the investigation of the case. The court said that hence, in such a scenario, it is improper to
detain the seized vehicle in the custody of the police for an indefinite period of time which
may ultimately cause natural decay and depreciate its value for not being in use for a
considerable period of time. Therefore, the registered owner is legally entitled to claim
custody of the seized property sans any adverse report from the Investigating Officer of the
case.
Conclusion :
In the final Superdari order passed by the court if there is a mention of a valuation report
being made, or a mention that valuation charge needs to be charged on the phone then the
applicant has to pay the valuation charges. But if there are no conditions imposed by the
court, then even though the Investigating officer asks the applicant for valuation charges, the
applicant may or may not pay the charges. The Investigating officer cannot keep the property
with himself if the applicant refuses to pay the valuation charges as the registered owner is
legally entitled to claim custody of the seized property.
