MP High Court Directs State To Fully Compensate Party For Stolen Jewellery Worth ₹80 Lakhs Which Was Lost After Seizure By Police

Taking note of the fact that the jewelries were supposed to be in the possession of the police after they had found and seized it, Justice G.S. Ahluwalia held-

It is not out of place to mention here that police has registered FIR in Crime No.290/2017 at Police Station Padav, District Gwalior for offence under Section 409 of IPC. The gold and silver ornaments seized by the police in Crime Nos.177/98 and 178/98 and they were kept in the treasury. Now they are missing…According to the respondents themselves, the cost of the seized ornaments was Rs.80 Lacs. Since the value of the goods has been ascertained by the respondents themselves, therefore, the respondent No.1 shall pay the compensation of Rs.80 Lacs.

Facts of the case were that the relatives of the Petitioners were robbed off their valuables and then murdered. One of the culprits was caught hold of by the Police from whom the stolen jewelries were seized and later kept in their treasury. After the conclusion of trial, the Petitioners moved an application before the lower court for release of the ornaments. Allowing the said application, the trial court had directed that the ornaments be called from the treasury and their valuation be done before handing over the property to the custody of the Petitioners. However, the said ornaments were never presented by the Police.

In an enquiry initiated by the District Judge, it was found that the seized ornaments could not be traced in the treasury and accordingly, an FIR was lodged against the responsible individuals. The valuation of the property as per the FIR was Rs.80,00,000/-. The Petitioners, thus, asserted that the State be held liable for their loss and that they be compensated for it.

The Court relied on Smt. Basava Kom Dyamogouda Patil vs. State of Mysore, AIR 1977 SC 1749, where the Supreme Court held that where the property is stolen, lost or destroyed and there is no prima facie defence made out that the State or its officers had taken due care and caution to protect the property, the Magistrate may order payment of the value of the property.

Thus, the Court directed the State to compensate the Petitioners by paying for their loss.