Legal Provisions of Section 451 of Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 (Cr.P.C.), India.
Order for custody and disposal of property pending trial in certain cases:
This section deals with the custody and disposal of property during an inquiry or trial. The Explanation appended in the section gives a very wide meaning to the word property which includes property of any kind or document in respect of which an offence appears to have been committed or which appears to have been used in commission of an offence or which has been produced before the Court or which is in custody of the Court.
ADVERTISEMENTS:
The modes of disposal of property may include its destruction, confiscation, delivery to the person having title of possession of property, restoration to the person dispossessed or sale etc.
This section gives power to the Court to order the custody and disposal of property pending inquiry or trial which has been exhibited. The Court may order it to be given in custody to any party during inquiry or trial on furnishing an indemnity bond.
Image Source : luna.edu
This section applies to any kind of aforesaid property which is produced before the Court or is in custody of the Court during inquiry or trial in a criminal case. It also includes any immovable property which has been seized or sealed by the police during investigation on Magistrate’s taking cognizance of the offence on the police report.
ADVERTISEMENTS:
The section empowers the Magistrate to order the custody and disposal of property pending investigation or trial using his discretion and such discretion should not be arbitrary. He should also give an opportunity to the parties claiming interest in the seized property to be heard in the matter.
He may order interim custody of the property under this section where it is deemed necessary but in no case the custody of the seized property should be given to the accused or the complainant until the final disposal of the case.
The order of interim custody shall, however, depend on the nature of the property and the circumstances of the case. Where the Magistrate finds that the person who is given custody of the property under this section is not taking proper care to look after it, or is misusing it, he may pass fresh order regarding the custody of such property. It is for this reason that the order passed by the Court under Section 451 is not final, it is essentially an interlocutory in nature and hence no revision lies against such order.
Custody of Motor vehicles etc:
ADVERTISEMENTS:
In case of motor cycles, cars, trucks etc., the interim custody is generally given to the person in whose name the vehicle is registered. The complainant cannot claim the custody of the vehicle if it is not registered in his name. A jeep involved in a serious bomb explosion was refused to be given in custody of anyone as it was required to be produced in the same condition during trial of the case.
The Magistrate may order the property which is perishable or subject to natural delay to be disposed of by sale. He may also order any other property to be disposed of by sale if he thinks it expedient to do so in the circumstances of the case.
In M/s. Satnam Agro-Industries & another v. State of Punjab & others the paddy/rice seized was lying in Court custody. It being a perishable order the Court directed that the rice be sold by public auction pending disposal of civil suit can criminal complaint filed against appellant.
The sale proceeds received from such public auction, initially shall be paid to the appellant, M/s. Satnam Agro-industries subject to the condition that the appellant firm shall furnish bank guarantee for the said amount before the Additional Chief Judicial Magistrate, Ferozpur.
The process of auction sale shall be finalise within six weeks from the Court’s order and the pending civil suit and criminal proceedings in the respective Courts shall be expeditiously decided.
The High Court of Allahabad in Kishan Lal v. State of I/.P., held that release of goods could not be refused on ground of non-payment of trade tax. Even if the trade-tax was due, it was for the Trade-Tax Department to initiate the proceedings. But goods which were perishable items could not be kept in custody till the conclusion of trial.
It must, be stated that while passing an order under Section 451, the Court merely decides about the custody or disposal of the property involved in the case, but does not decide the question of title or rights of the parties over the property.
The “term production before the Court” with reference to the property used in this section does not necessarily mean actual physical possession or custody by the Court. The Court may have control over the property even without its actual possession or custody.
For instance, theft of the timber of the forest department which was seized, though not actually produced before the Court, was nevertheless in its control and, therefore, an interim release of such seized forest timber could be ordered by the Court.
In a case, where two printing and cutting machines were seized of offence under the Copyright Act, the Sessions Judge refused to release them as they were the ‘case property’ and could be confiscated if the case proved against the accused. In appeal against this order of the Sessions Judge, the High Court of Delhi refused to set aside the order and found no reason to invoke its inherent powers as no special circumstances were shown to justify such invocation.
In Supdt. of Customs and Central Excise Nagarcoil v. R. Sunder, the Additional Chief Judicial Magistrate had ordered the return of contraband goods which was seized by the Customs and Central Excise Officials. The High Court of Madras held that the Criminal Court has no power or jurisdiction to order interim custody of such seized goods or its return as the disposal of the property seized could be possible under the Customs Act only.
Where a Magistrate forwarded a complaint to the police for investigation, there is neither inquiry nor trial pending before him. hence the property seized by the custom officers could not be said to have been produced during inquiry or trial. Consequently, the Magistrate has no jurisdiction or power to direct delivery or disposal of such property under Section 452 of the Code.
In the case of Canara Bank v. State of Punjab a tractor was purchased by the respondent on bank loan. Security furnished by him was found to be fabricated. Therefore, tractor was seized pursuant to complaint lodged by the Bank and it was given to bank on sapurdari.
Bank made an application to the Court for selling the tractor. The High Court held that Section 451 confers discretionary power on Court to permit sale. Tractor is an automobile which is subject to decay. It was of no use to Bank and was lying idle. Bank could recover at-least part of loan by sale of tractor. Therefore, even if tractor was case-property, expediency of situation demanded that the Bank should be permitted to sell it.
In State of Karnataka v. K. Krishna Gowda, a case was registered against the accused for amassing wealth disproportionate to his income under Section 13 (1) (e) and Section 13 (2) of the Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988. Cash of Rs. 70,000/- as well as other valuable articles were seized in that context. The order of the Court releasing seized properties and cash while investigation was still in progress was held to be illegal.