parties adversely affected should be heard before the Court makes an order for return of the seized property (1) It is mainfest that the High Court was bound to. give notice to the 'appellant before reversing the order of the trial court directing the disposal of the property under s. 517 of the Code of Criminal Procedure. As no such notice was given to the appellant, the order of the High Court dated 5th April 1963 is vitiated in law. Although the statute does not expressly require a notice to be issued, or a hearing to be given to the parties adversely affected. there is in the eye of law a necessary implication that the parties adversely affected should be heard before the Court makes an order for return of the seized property Cooper v. Wandsworth Board of Works. (1863) 14 C.B.N.S. 180, Ridge v. Baldwin, (1963) 2 W.L.R. 935 and Board of High School and Intermediate Education, U.P. Allahabad v. Ghanshyam Das Gupta and Ors, A.I.R. 1962 S.C. 1110, referred to. (2) The appellant asserted that it had obtained the currency notes in the normal course of its business and without any knowledge or suspecion of their having been involved in the commission of any offence and that the respondents had not alleged fraud or lack of good faith on the part of the appellant. In the circumstances the High Court should have directed the return of the currency notes to the appellant which had the "right to possess" the notes within the language of s. 517 of the Code of Criminal Procedure. Property in coins and currency notes passes by mere delivery and it is the clearest exception-to the rule Nemo dat quod non habet Supreme Court of India State Bank Of India vs Rajendra Kumar Singh & Ors on 25 September, 1968 Equivalent citations: 1969 AIR 401, 1969 SCR (2) 216
https://www.lawweb.in/2012/10/parties-adversely-affected-should-be.html
