Section 49 — Returning exhibits without a civil claim
Statutory text (Thai original)
แม้จะไม่มีฟ้องคดีส่วนแพ่งก็ตาม เมื่อพิพากษาคดีส่วนอาญา ศาลจะสั่งให้คืนทรัพย์สินของกลางแก่เจ้าของก็ได้
English translation
Even though no civil claim has been filed, the court, when adjudging the criminal case, may order the exhibits to be returned to their owner.
This English translation is provided for reference only and has not yet been firm-verified — always rely on the Thai original.
Firm annotation
Section 49 empowers the criminal court, of its own motion in the criminal judgment, to order exhibits returned to their owner even where no connected civil claim has been made. In practice it works with section 186(9), on the required contents of a judgment: when property that was seized is neither forfeitable nor an instrument of the offence, the court must deal with it, and returning it to the owner is the proper disposal. Because the correct disposal of exhibits touches public order, the appellate and Supreme Courts may raise and correct an omission on their own initiative, even where no party has appealed the point, under sections 195 paragraph two and 225.
Why this matters in practice
If your property was seized as an exhibit but is not something the court can confiscate and was not used to commit the offence, you may get it back through the criminal judgment itself, without filing a civil claim. This is helpful for third parties whose items were caught up in a seizure, for example a phone or vehicle not actually used in the crime. Because higher courts can correct a missed return order on their own, an omission at trial is not necessarily fatal, but it is still wise to raise the point and, if the item is valuable, seek advice through a consultation with a Thai lawyer.
Supreme Court decisions interpreting this section
-
Supreme Court Judgment No. 3034/2565 (2022)
Exhibits that are not property used to commit the offence cannot be forfeited and must be returned to their owner under Section 49 read with Section 186(9); the court may raise this on its own initiative.
The Court found that documents, seals, pliers and related items were not property used to commit the offence, so they could not be forfeited and had to be returned to the owner under Section 49 with Section 186(9). As a public-order legal issue, the Supreme Court could raise it even though no party had appealed the point, under Section 195 paragraph two with Section 225.
-
Supreme Court Judgment No. 4319/2562 (2019)
A mobile phone not shown to be used in the offence cannot be forfeited and must be returned to its owner under Section 49 with Section 186(9); the Supreme Court may correct this on its own initiative.
Because it could not be found that the defendant took part in the offence, the mobile phone was not property used in the crime and could not be forfeited; it had to be returned to its owner under Section 49 with Section 186(9) and the Narcotics Case Procedure Act. As a public-order issue, the Supreme Court raised and corrected the point on its own.
-
Supreme Court Judgment No. 4796/2561 (2018)
Where a defendant is found not to have joined in the offence, the appellate court has power under Section 49 with Section 186(9) and 215 to order the seized items returned to their owner.
Finding without doubt that the defendant had not joined in the offence, the Court held the appellate court had power to order the seized mobile phone and motorcycle returned to the defendant under Section 49 with Sections 186(9) and 215. It confirmed this as a public-order issue the court could raise on its own initiative.
Curated decisions with case numbers verified against the Supreme Court database. English renderings are the firm's editorial translation for study.
Frequently asked questions
Can the court return my exhibit even if I did not file a civil claim?
Yes. Section 49 lets the criminal court order exhibits returned to their owner when adjudging the criminal case, even without any civil claim.
What if the trial court forgot to order my property returned?
Correct disposal of exhibits is a public-order question, so an appellate court or the Supreme Court may raise and fix the omission on its own initiative, even if no party appealed the point.