Analysis of Section 457 Cr.P.C.

An Analysis of Section 457 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973: Procedure for Disposal of Seized Property Not Produced Before Court

Introduction

The Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 (Cr.P.C.) provides a comprehensive framework for the administration of criminal justice in India. Chapter XXXIV of the Code, titled "Disposal of Property," encompasses provisions crucial for managing property that becomes part of the criminal justice process. Among these, Section 457[1] outlines the procedure to be followed by a Magistrate when property seized by a police officer is reported to the Magistrate but is not produced before a Criminal Court during an inquiry or trial. This article seeks to provide a scholarly analysis of Section 457 Cr.P.C., examining its scope, applicability, judicial interpretation, and interplay with other laws, drawing upon statutory provisions and relevant case law.

Scope and Applicability of Section 457 Cr.P.C.

Section 457(1) Cr.P.C. stipulates: "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."[1]

Conditions for Invocation

The invocation of Section 457 Cr.P.C. is contingent upon the fulfillment of specific conditions:

As observed in Ajai Singh v. Nathi Lal[2], Section 457 is more or less a residuary provision dealing with property not covered by Sections 451 and 452 of the Cr.P.C.

Distinction from Sections 451 and 452 Cr.P.C.

The Supreme Court in Ram Parkash Sharma v. State Of Haryana ((1978) 2 SCC 491)[4] elucidated the trichotomy in the provisions for disposal of property:

  • Section 457 Cr.P.C.: Applies where property has been seized by the police but not produced before the court.
  • Section 451 Cr.P.C.[17]: Governs the disposal of property seized and/or otherwise produced before the Court during any inquiry or trial (interim custody).
  • Section 452 Cr.P.C.[18]: Pertains to the disposal of property involved in a case after the inquiry or trial in any criminal court is concluded.

This distinction was also highlighted in State Of A.P. v. Syed Belquis Sultana (1985 CriLJ 1093 (Andhra Pradesh High Court))[3], which reiterated that Section 457 applies when the property is not produced during inquiry or trial, and the case is still in the investigation stage.

Magistrate's Discretion and Powers

Under Section 457 Cr.P.C., the Magistrate is empowered to make "such order as he thinks fit" regarding the disposal, delivery, or custody of the property. This grants considerable discretion to the Magistrate. The Supreme Court in Ram Parkash Sharma[4] affirmed that the court has power under Section 457 to dispose of property seized by the police but not yet produced. However, it cautioned that this power does not mean the property must always be released to the person from whom it was recovered, especially when the investigation is ongoing. The Court must be circumspect and exercise discretion considering the interests of justice, including the prospective necessity of producing the seized articles at trial. If release would prejudice the course of justice, the claim should be rejected.

The Madras High Court in P. Saraswathi v. State (2018 (2) MWN (Cr.) 345)[9] observed that under Section 457 Cr.P.C., the title to the property is not determined or adjudicated, and the order passed is summary in character. The power comes into play when an investigation is registered and seizure is made.

Judicial Interpretation and Key Principles from Case Law

The judiciary has, through various pronouncements, laid down principles guiding the application of Section 457 Cr.P.C.

The Supreme Court in Sunderbhai Ambalal Desai v. State Of Gujarat ((2002) 10 SCC 283)[5], while primarily discussing Section 451, laid down extensive guidelines for the custody and disposal of seized property, emphasizing that powers under Section 451 (and by extension, Section 457 where applicable) should be exercised expeditiously and judiciously. The Court noted the issues of prolonged retention of articles at police stations, leading to deterioration and loss. The objective is to ensure that the owner of the article should not suffer because of its remaining unused or by its misappropriation.

This principle aligns with the observations in Basavva Kom Dyamangouda Patil (Smt) v. State Of Mysore And Another ((1977) 4 SCC 358)[6], where the Supreme Court held that property seized by the police ought not to be retained in the custody of the Court or police longer than absolutely necessary. The Gauhati High Court in several cases, such as THE STATE OF ASSAM AND ANR v. FAKRUL HAQUE LASKAR (2023)[19], referred to Basavva Kom and Sunderbhai Ambalal Desai to emphasize immediate action for seized articles, though these cases primarily focused on Section 451 Cr.P.C.

The Supreme Court in General Insurance Council And Others v. State Of Andhra Pradesh And Others ((2010) 6 SCC 768)[10], reiterated the directions in Sunderbhai Ambalal Desai[5] regarding the management of seized vehicles, emphasizing compliance with Sections 451 and 457 Cr.P.C. to prevent deterioration and ensure proper handling.

Procedure under Section 457 Cr.P.C.

Report to Magistrate

The process under Section 457 Cr.P.C. commences when the seizure of property by a police officer is reported to a Magistrate.

Order for Disposal/Delivery to Entitled Person

If the person entitled to the possession of the property is known, Section 457(2) empowers the Magistrate to order the property to be delivered to him on such conditions (if any) as the Magistrate thinks fit. (The Supdt. Of Customs & Central Excise, Nagercoil v. R. Sundar[7]; Chetanbhai Vasantbhai Mistary v. State Of Gujarat & Anr., 2003 (1) GLH 645[8]).

Procedure when Entitled Person is Unknown (Proclamation)

If the person entitled to possession cannot be ascertained or is unknown, the Magistrate may detain the property. In such a case, Section 457(2) mandates the Magistrate to 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.[1]

The Andhra Pradesh High Court in Sadruddin Javeri v. Government Of A.P And Others (1998 (1) ALD Cri 149)[11] also outlined this procedure while discussing the interplay of Section 457 Cr.P.C. with Section 132-A of the Income Tax Act, 1961.

Interplay with Special Statutes

A significant area of litigation concerning Section 457 Cr.P.C. involves its application when property is seized under special statutes that contain their own provisions for confiscation.

In State Of Madhya Pradesh And Others v. Madhukar Rao ((2008) 14 SCC 624)[12], the Supreme Court, while dealing with the Wild Life (Protection) Act, 1972, held that amendments to the Act did not eliminate the Magistrate's power under Section 451 Cr.P.C. to order interim release of seized vehicles. The Court emphasized that provisions of the Cr.P.C. remain applicable unless explicitly excluded by the special statute. While this case pertained to Section 451, its reasoning can extend to Section 457 if the property is not produced in court.

However, certain special acts contain provisions that can bar the jurisdiction of the Magistrate under Sections 451/457 Cr.P.C. For instance, Section 47-D of the M.P. Excise Act, 1915[25], explicitly bars the court from making orders regarding disposal or custody of seized items after receiving intimation from the Collector about the initiation of confiscation proceedings. The Madhya Pradesh High Court in Anil Dhakad v. State Of M.P. (2018 (3) MPJR 232)[13] held that if, at the time of hearing or passing the order on an application under Section 451/457 Cr.P.C., the Magistrate has information about the initiation of confiscation proceedings under the M.P. Excise Act, the Magistrate's jurisdiction is ousted. A similar view was taken in Prakash Vishwakarma v. State Of M.P. (2018 SCC OnLine MP 619)[14].

Conversely, the Orissa High Court in prabira sikdar v. state of odisha (2019 (I) OLR 975)[15] held that if confiscation proceedings under the Odisha Excise Act have not been initiated, the Magistrate is not precluded from exercising jurisdiction under Section 457 Cr.P.C. The mere possibility of future confiscation proceedings is not a bar (Balamurugan v. State, 2015 SCC OnLine Mad 10318[24]).

Regarding the Narcotic Drugs and Psychotropic Substances Act, 1985 (NDPS Act), the Orissa High Court in DIPTIPRAVA SAHU v. STATE OF ODISHA (2024 SCC OnLine Ori 235)[16] held that Section 60(3) of the NDPS Act[26] (regarding conditions for not confiscating a vehicle post-trial) is not applicable at the stage of consideration of interim release of a vehicle under Section 457 Cr.P.C. and is not a bar to such release.

The Kerala High Court in Nikhil T.M. v. Deputy Excise Commissioner (2016 SCC OnLine Ker 20440)[22] dealt with an application under Section 457 Cr.P.C. for a vehicle seized under the Abkari Act, highlighting the conditions imposed, such as cash security versus bond.

The case of Jitendra Singh And Others v. State Of M.p. (2021 SCC OnLine MP 4146)[23] involved an application under Section 451/457 Cr.P.C. for interim custody of trucks seized in connection with illegal sand mining, where the courts considered the pendency or non-pendency of confiscation proceedings.

It is pertinent to note State Of Karnataka v. K. Krishnan ((2000) 7 SCC 80)[21], where the Supreme Court, in a matter concerning seizure under the Karnataka Forest Act, set aside a High Court order under Section 482 Cr.P.C. releasing a vehicle, noting the casual approach and the objectives of the special Act to preserve forests. This underscores the need for courts to consider the specific provisions and objectives of special acts.

Considerations for the Magistrate

When exercising discretion under Section 457 Cr.P.C., the Magistrate must balance various factors:

  • Interests of Justice: This includes the need for the property for evidentiary purposes during investigation or potential trial (Ram Parkash Sharma[4]).
  • Prevention of Loss or Deterioration: Seized property, especially vehicles or perishable goods, should not be allowed to deteriorate or be lost due to prolonged retention (Sunderbhai Ambalal Desai[5]).
  • Rights of the Claimant: The person entitled to possession should not be unduly deprived of their property if its release does not hamper the investigation or trial.
  • Conditions for Release: The Magistrate can impose conditions to ensure the production of the property if required later.
  • Nature of the Offence and Property: The seriousness of the offence and the nature of the property involved are relevant considerations.

Conclusion

Section 457 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973, serves as a crucial provision for the judicial oversight of property seized by the police but not produced in court during inquiry or trial. It empowers Magistrates to make appropriate orders for the disposal, delivery, or custody of such property, balancing the interests of the state in prosecuting crime with the rights of individuals to their property. The Supreme Court and various High Courts have emphasized the need for expeditious and judicious exercise of this power, particularly to prevent the deterioration and loss of seized articles. While the Magistrate's discretion under Section 457 is wide, it must be exercised with circumspection, especially considering the stage of investigation and the potential need for the property at trial. The interplay with special statutes providing for confiscation adds a layer of complexity, often requiring a careful examination of whether the special law ousts the general provisions of the Cr.P.C. Ultimately, Section 457 Cr.P.C. aims to ensure that seized property is managed fairly and efficiently within the framework of the criminal justice system.

References

  1. Section 457, Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973.
  2. Ajai Singh v. Nathi Lal, 1978 CriLJ 629 (Allahabad High Court).
  3. State Of A.P. v. Syed Belquis Sultana, 1985 CriLJ 1093 (Andhra Pradesh High Court).
  4. Ram Parkash Sharma v. State Of Haryana, (1978) 2 SCC 491.
  5. Sunderbhai Ambalal Desai v. State Of Gujarat, (2002) 10 SCC 283.
  6. Basavva Kom Dyamangouda Patil (Smt) v. State Of Mysore And Another, (1977) 4 SCC 358.
  7. The Supdt. Of Customs & Central Excise, Nagercoil v. R. Sundar, 1993 CriLJ 956 (Madras High Court).
  8. Chetanbhai Vasantbhai Mistary v. State Of Gujarat & Anr., 2003 (1) GLH 645 (Gujarat High Court).
  9. P. Saraswathi v. State, 2018 (2) MWN (Cr.) 345 (Madras High Court).
  10. General Insurance Council And Others v. State Of Andhra Pradesh And Others, (2010) 6 SCC 768.
  11. Sadruddin Javeri v. Government Of A.P And Others, 1998 (1) ALD Cri 149 (Andhra Pradesh High Court).
  12. State Of Madhya Pradesh And Others v. Madhukar Rao, (2008) 14 SCC 624.
  13. Anil Dhakad v. State Of M.P., 2018 (3) MPJR 232 (Madhya Pradesh High Court).
  14. Prakash Vishwakarma v. State Of M.P., 2018 SCC OnLine MP 619 (Madhya Pradesh High Court).
  15. prabira sikdar v. state of odisha, 2019 (I) OLR 975 (Orissa High Court).
  16. DIPTIPRAVA SAHU v. STATE OF ODISHA, 2024 SCC OnLine Ori 235 (Orissa High Court).
  17. Section 451, Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973.
  18. Section 452, Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973.
  19. THE STATE OF ASSAM AND ANR v. FAKRUL HAQUE LASKAR (Gauhati High Court, 2023); THE STATE OF ASSAM AND ANR v. RAM SANKAR MAURYA (Gauhati High Court, 2023); THE STATE OF ASSAM v. ANOWAR HUSSAIN LASKAR @ MONAI (Gauhati High Court, 2023); THE STATE OF ASSAM AND ANR v. SAHIDUL ALOM LASKAR (Gauhati High Court, 2023).
  20. Section 47-D, M.P. Excise Act, 1915.
  21. Section 60(3), Narcotic Drugs and Psychotropic Substances Act, 1985.
  22. State Of Karnataka v. K. Krishnan, (2000) 7 SCC 80.
  23. Nikhil T.M. v. Deputy Excise Commissioner, 2016 SCC OnLine Ker 20440 (Kerala High Court).
  24. Jitendra Singh And Others v. State Of M.p., 2021 SCC OnLine MP 4146 (Madhya Pradesh High Court).
  25. Balamurugan v. State rep. by Inspector of Police, Prohibition Enforcement Wing (PEW PS.,), Thanjavur, 2015 SCC OnLine Mad 10318 (Madras High Court).