CrPC Section 457- Procedure By Police Upon Seizure Of Property

Section 457 of the Code of Criminal Procedure 1973 (hereinafter referred as “the Code”), details the procedure that is to be followed by the Police in case any property is seized. It describes how a Magistrate is empowered to issue an order regarding the disposal or delivery of seized property. This Section of the Code brings accountability and puts forth proper procedure regarding the seizure and handling of property by police officers.

Legal Provision: CrPC Section 457- Procedure By Police Upon Seizure Of Property

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.

Simplified Explanation Of CrPC Section 457

This Section lays down the procedure that has to be followed by the police when any property is seized. The Section provides for the following:

Section 457(1): Report of seizure and the powers of the Magistrate

• Whenever any property is seized by the police officer, they are duty-bound to report such action to a Magistrate.
• If such seized property is not produced before the Court at the time of inquiry or trial, the Magistrate can pass an order on how that property is to be dealt with.
• The discretion of the Magistrate can be exercised in three ways, namely:
  • Disposal: He can pass an order for the disposal of that property.
  • Return to owner: Where the Magistrate is aware of who the owner of the property is, then he may order that the property be returned to the owner subject to conditions (if any).
  • Custody and production: Where the property has no known owner the property may be kept with the Magistrate

Section 457(2): Procedure where the owner of the property is unknown

• Where the owner of the property cannot be determined, the Magistrate shall cause a proclamation to be issued:
  • Such proclamation shall contain details of the things contained within the seized property.
  • It calls upon any person having a claim to the property to come before the Magistrate.
  • Any claimant to the property is required to appear before the Magistrate within six months of the date of the issuance of the proclamation.

Section 457(2) of the Code enumerates the procedures to be followed with regard to the properties seized when the owner is unknown. In such cases, the property can be detained by the Magistrate with a proclamation.

Circumstances in which a Magistrate may detain property and issue a proclamation:

• Unknown Owner: In case the real owner of the seized property is not known, or cannot be determined after reasonable inquiry, the seized property shall be kept in custody by the Magistrate. This would prevent any loss or damage to it, and even its disposal before finding the real owner.
• Disputed Ownership: If it were to be found that over the subject property, there are numerous claimants and the actual owner is not immediately ascertained, then such property could be detained by the Magistrate and a proclamation issued. This would give ample opportunity and time for different owners to come forward to prove they have the lawful ownership of the same.

Purpose Of Proclamation

It is a public notice to proclaim the seized property and, as a result, invite people with valid claims to step forward and establish proof of ownership of the property within a stipulated period of time. This makes certain that fair and just treatment is given to the seized property.

Practical Examples Illustrating CrPC Section 457

Example 1: Seizure of Stolen Goods

Scenario: During the investigation, any stolen property, like a motor car, is recovered by the Police, and no one claims that the vehicle belongs to them.

Application of Section 457: The police send a report of such seizure to the Magistrate. Unless the vehicle is required for evidence in the Court, the vehicle is disposed of by order from the Magistrate. The rightful owner of the motor car was identified by the Police. Hence, the Magistrate directed that the vehicle shall be returned to the owner.

Example 2: Seizure of unclaimed cash

Situation: Police recover a hefty amount of cash from a crime scene. The accused denied being the owner of that cash, and nobody claims ownership of the money.

Application of Section 457: The police send a report of seizure to the Magistrate. Since the cash is not needed for trial, the Magistrate may pass an order for proclamation stating that any person claiming to have a right thereto may appear before him within six months from the date thereof and establish his title thereto. In case no person comes forward to claim the money within that time, the Magistrate may pass an order for its deposit into the government treasury or dispose otherwise.

Example 3: Forfeiture Of Contraband Property

Scenario: The police conducted a drug seizure. Accordingly, the police confiscate illegal narcotics.

Application of Section 457: The police intimate the seizure to the Magistrate. Since the drugs are illicit and can never have any lawful owner, the Magistrate may order such narcotics to be destroyed under the law. There is no need for a proclamation here because illegal goods cannot be said to have legal ownership.

Example 4: Seizure Of Property During A Protest

Scenario: Police seize banners, flags, and loudspeakers in an unauthorized protest. Items that are seized are not necessary as evidence in court.

Application of Section 457: The police report the seizure to the Magistrate. If organizers or protestors make a claim of ownership, at his discretion, the Magistrate can order the items returned to them on certain conditions laid down by him, such as not using them in future illegal protests. If nobody claims the property, the Magistrate can issue a proclamation and on expiry of the stipulated period, dispose of the items.

Example 5: Seizure Of Jewels In A Theft Case

Illustration: In a Theft case, police recover the Jewels but trace no owner.

Application of Section 457: The police send a report to the Magistrate. If the jewels are not property required in evidence in court, the Magistrate would pass an order that the police publish proclamations for any owner to appear and claim them within six months. If the owner is traced and establishes his ownership, the Magistrate will make an order for the jewellery to be returned to him. If nobody turns up, the jewellery may be sold and the proceeds deposited with the state.

These examples, therefore, show how Section 457 of the Code empowers the Magistrate to decide upon the custody, return, or disposal of the seized property upon the facts of the particular case.

Penalties And Punishments Under CrPC Section 457

Section 457 of the Code prescribes the procedure for disposal of seized property by the Police which is not required to be presented before a court during an inquiry or trial. Therefore, the Section does not provide for any penalties or punishments for non-conformance with the provision.

Notable Case Laws Related To CrPC Section 457

Ram Parkash Sharma vs. State of Haryana (1978)

The Supreme Court in this case determined that Section 457 of the Code thereby gives discretion to the Court to return properties seized by police even when such properties have not been produced before it. It explained that the power afforded by the said provision did not create an automatic right to the return of the seized property to the person from whom it had been seized simply because that person had so requested.

The Court identified several considerations which should properly be taken into account when the court has to decide whether or not to make an order for the release of seized property under Section 457. These are as follows:

• Sequence of the events for the case: The stage of the case and progress at investigation become very relevant.
• Formal charge: Filing a charge-sheet against the accused is also one of the relevant factors.
• Evidentiary value: The Court has to consider whether the seized property, in any manner, will be required as evidence in further prosecutions. The release of such property that may be used as evidence will affect the prosecution case.
• Impact on justice: The Court needs to take into account whether releasing the properties would affect or prejudice the course of Justice.

Additionally, even though police and the Court should not retain seized property in perpetuity, the Court added caution. Applications for the release of seized property should be subjected to scrutiny for a determination that the property may be needed at some future time in the trial.

M. Muniswamy & Others vs. State (Spe/CBI/Hyderabad) /Complainant (1992)

The learned Single Judge of the Andhra Pradesh High Court held that Section 457 of the Code relating to property seized by the police, would apply notwithstanding that the property was seized before any investigation or trial had started. They voted down the more restrictive position that would provide that when property would be released if it has been formally reported to a Magistrate. The Court held that it would lead to custody of the property for a longer period without any review. Instead, the court held that any Magistrate is empowered to order such property released, provided such release is performed in a manner that is fair, taking into consideration the relevance of the property to the case, and in such a way as not to prejudice the trial.

The court held that while it is within the powers of the Magistrate to order the release of property under Section 457, such powers have to be applied judiciously. The court thus reiterated some of the matters that should form the basis of consideration, namely :

• The nexus of the applicant to the seized property.
• The potential impact that the release of the property would have on the trial.
• The likelihood of the property being used to obstruct justice.

The balancing of the scale that has been endeavoured in the court's interpretation has focused on providing relief and protection to the individual whose property has been seized against the interest in the integrity of the ongoing legal process.

General Insurance Council & Ors. vs. State of A.P. & Ors. (2010)

Even though in this case, Section 457 of the Code is not invoked, the principles held in this case are certainly relevant. The issue before the Court was how the disposed-of vehicles were withering away in police custody incurring losses, particularly in regard to insurance companies. Hence, the court, keeping in view the provisions contained in Section 451 of the Code and 158(6) of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988, lays down the process for releasing such vehicles as soon as possible to their owners or insurers.

In the guidelines set by the court, here is how the factors of Section 457 are implicitly adopted:

• Timely release: The court insisted that insurance companies be allowed to apply for the release of recovered vehicles and such release, unless under exceptional circumstances, should be granted within 30 days of the application. This advocates for a speedy release which is in line with the letter and spirit of Section 457, which describes detention of seized property as needless and protracted.
• Balance of interest: An order of the court for the release of vehicles to insurance companies upon an undertaking by them to pay sale proceeds when the ownership is later contested was a balancing act. In this approach, the interests of both the insurance companies (to avoid losses from vehicle depreciation) and the judicial process (which needs the asset to be available should it be required) are duly protected.

While the Supreme Court does not expressly apply Section 457 in this case, the spirit underlying this judgement is specifically vigilant to the words of the said Section. Especially for a balanced and judicious approach towards the seized property to avoid deterioration of the property and to meet the ends of justice.

Recent Changes

Since the enactment of Section 457 of the Code, there has been no amendment to it. Section 457 of the Code has been retained without any changes under Section 503 of the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023.

Summary

Section 457 of the Code of Criminal Procedure deals with the disposal of property that is seized and reported before the Magistrate but not produced before the court during a trial or an inquiry. Thereafter, the Magistrate may order the property to be returned to the person from whom it was taken, if his identity is known. In case its owner is not known, may have it kept and advertised the same, inviting any person thinking that the property belongs to him to appear before the Magistrate within six months.

Key Insights & Quick Facts

• Reporting of seizure: While seizing any property, a Police Officer has to report the same to a Magistrate under the Code.
• Authority of the Magistrate: The Magistrate is empowered under the Code to pass orders for the disposal or delivery of the seized property.
• Delivery to entitled person: In case of known ownership of the property, the Magistrate can order its delivery with certain conditions (if any).
• Unknown entitled person: In this case, if the entitled person can not be traced, the property will come into custody under the Magistrate, for further action in its disposal.
• Proclamation to be issued: When the entitled person is unknown, the Magistrate shall cause a proclamation to be issued, specifying the property and requiring any person claiming it to appear and establish his right within a certain time.
• Time to submit a claim: Time to be allowed for putting in a claim is six months from the date of proclamation.
• Custody until claim: The Magistrate can detain the properties in safe custody till a rightful owner is found.
• Discretion of Magistrate: The whole process leaves much discretion to the Magistrate to decide about the manner of properties being dealt with.