The applicant lodged an FIR for theft; during investigation the police recovered stolen cash and gold from the accused. The applicant moved an application under S. 457 of the CrPC for release of the seized articles, which was opposed by the Income-tax Department on the ground that the assets were unaccounted and liable for requisition under s. 132A. The trial Court rejected the application merely on the Department’s objection. On revision, the High Court held that in proceedings under S. 457 of the CrPC, the Court is required to examine whether the claimant establishes ownership over the seized property on the basis of cogent material; the Income-tax Department cannot, in a criminal case where stolen property is seized by police, claim possession of such property by issuing notice under S. 132A, as that is a separate proceeding which can be initiated only after the decision of the criminal Court. If the Department seeks to tax unaccounted assets, it is free to initiate appropriate proceedings under the Act independently. Since the applicant had produced documentary evidence including a Tahsildar’s certificate in support of ownership, the trial Court erred in rejecting the application solely on the Department’s objection. The impugned order was set aside and the trial Court was directed to allow the application subject to satisfaction regarding ownership.