Chapter XXXIV
Section 457 CrPC: Procedure by police upon seizure of property
New Law Update (2024)
Section 523 BNSS
TRIAL COURT
Magistrate's Court
Punishment
Procedural – Investigation / Inquiry
Cognizable?
Bailable?
Compoundable?
Bare Act Text
(1) Whenever the seizure of property by any police officer is reported to a Magistrate under the provisions of this Code, and such property is not produced before a Criminal Court during an inquiry or trial, the Magistrate may make such order as he thinks fit respecting the disposal of such property or the delivery of such property to the person entitled to the possession thereof, or if such person cannot be ascertained, respecting the custody and production of such property.
(2) If the person so entitled is known, the Magistrate may order the property to be delivered to him on such conditions (if any) as the Magistrate thinks fit and if such person is unknown, the Magistrate may detain it and shall, in such case, issue a proclamation specifying the articles of which such property consists, and requiring any person who may have a claim thereto, to appear before him and establish his claim within six months from the date of such proclamation.
Important Sub-Sections Explained
Section 457(1)
This sub-section empowers a Magistrate to decide on the disposal or delivery of seized property, reported by the police but not presented in court during a trial or inquiry, to the person who has a right to its possession. If the rightful owner cannot be identified, the Magistrate determines the property’s custody and eventual production.
Section 457(2)
This sub-section details the procedure: if the rightful claimant is known, the Magistrate can order the property’s return with suitable conditions; if unknown, the Magistrate must issue a public proclamation describing the property and inviting claimants to establish their ownership within six months.
Landmark Judgements
Sunderbhai Ambalal Desai v. State of Gujarat (2002):
The Supreme Court emphasized the need for expeditious disposal of seized property, particularly vehicles, to prevent their deterioration and loss of value. It laid down general guidelines, stating that seized articles should ordinarily be returned to the rightful owner upon execution of a proper bond with surety, rather than being kept in police station compounds for long periods.
General Insurance Council v. State of Andhra Pradesh (2010):
This judgment reiterated and clarified the principles from Sunderbhai Ambalal Desai, providing specific directions for the release of seized vehicles. It highlighted the economic loss caused by prolonged detention of vehicles and stressed the importance of their timely release to registered owners or insurers after proper identification and documentation, subject to suitable conditions.