Section 105A CrPC: Definitions

Chapter VIIA

asset forfeiture, contracting State, criminal activity, identifying, international cooperation, mutual legal assistance, proceeds of crime, property, tracing

New Law Update (2024)

Section 108 BNSS

TRIAL COURT

Punishment

Definitional

Cognizable?

Bailable?

Compoundable?

Bare Act Text

(1) “contracting State” means any country or place outside India in respect of which arrangements have been made by the Central Government with the Government of such country through a treaty or otherwise;
(2) “identifying” includes establishment of a proof that the property was derived from, or used in, the commission of an offence;
(3) “proceeds of crime” means any property derived or obtained directly or indirectly, by any person as a result of criminal activity (including crime involving currency transfers) or the value of any such property;
(4) “property” means property and assets of every description whether corporeal or incorporeal, movable or immovable, tangible or intangible, and deeds and instruments evidencing title to, or interest in, such property or assets derived or used in the commission of an offence and includes property obtained through proceeds of crime;
(5) “tracing” means determining the nature, source, disposition, movement, title or ownership of property.

Important Sub-Sections Explained

Section 105A(1)

This sub-section is crucial as it defines a ‘contracting State,’ which is any country or place outside India with which the Central Government has arrangements for mutual legal assistance, thereby setting the territorial scope for international cooperation under the CrPC.

Section 105A(3)

This sub-section defines ‘proceeds of crime’ as any property derived or obtained, directly or indirectly, from criminal activity. It is fundamental for identifying assets that can be subject to attachment, forfeiture, or other actions under international legal assistance provisions.

Landmark Judgements

Mohanlal Lalchand Jain v. State of Maharashtra (2012):

The Bombay High Court elaborated on the interpretation of “proceeds of crime” and “property” under Section 105A(3) and (4) CrPC, clarifying that a direct or indirect causal link between criminal activity and the property is essential for it to be considered proceeds of crime. The court emphasized the broad scope of “property” to include all types of assets.

Paramjit Singh v. Union of India (2018):

The Punjab & Haryana High Court, while addressing the attachment of property under Section 105D CrPC, affirmed the broad definitions of “property” and “proceeds of crime” in Section 105A. It reiterated that assets located in India, even if the offence occurred in a contracting state, could be subject to attachment if they fall within the ambit of “proceeds of crime” as defined by this section for international cooperation.

Chapter VIIA