Legal Provisions of Section 457 of Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 (Cr.P.C.), India.
Procedure by police upon seizure of property:
The section is applicable to cases where seizure of the property is reported by police officer to the Magistrate and such property is not produced before a Court during an inquiry or trial. Thus the Magistrate can act under this section only when the seizure of the property is reported to him. He is empowered to pass an order in relation to such property in either of the three ways as stated below:—
ADVERTISEMENTS:
(i) He may order disposal of the property; or
(ii) Deliver it to the person entitled to its possession subject to condition, as he deems fit; or
(iii) In the absence of person entitled, he may order for its custody and its production.
Image Source : luna.edu
ADVERTISEMENTS:
The Court should exercise discretion in this regard keeping in view the interests of justice and prospective necessity of the production of property seized at the time of inquiry or trial. If the Court forms an opinion that the seized property would not be needed in any manner in any stage of the inquiry or trial, it may release the property in favour of the claimant on furnishing adequate security.
This section comes into play when a police officer seizes articles found during taking a search of a person arrested or seizes any property which may be alleged or suspected to have been stolen and found in circumstances creating suspicion of the commission of any offence.
The police are required to report about such seizure to the Magistrate or an interested party may also bring it to the notice of the Magistrate requesting for the restoration of the seized property to him. In these situations the Magistrate acts under Section 457.
It is not necessary that the Magistrate to whom the seizure has been reported by the Police or a private party should have jurisdiction to hold inquiry or trial in the case in which that property is involved as that property is not required to be produced before the Magistrate.
ADVERTISEMENTS:
In fact, this reporting of seized property to the Magistrate by the Police or the interested person refers to the stage of investigation of the case when inquiry or trial has not yet commenced. Therefore, if the Magistrate is of the opinion that the said property may be required to be produced at the time of inquiry or trial, then he may order for its custody and production when required. But before making such order, the party who is affected thereby should be given an opportunity to be heard.
Generally, when no offence is proved and the proceedings are dropped by the Court, the property is returned to the person from whom it was recovered or seized. But where the Court forms an opinion that the property has been obtained by such person by means of any offence, it may not order delivery of the property to him but decide about its disposal on merits of the case.
The order of the Magistrate under Section 457 relates only to the possession of the property and not the ownership of it. The Court has to exercise its judicial discretion to ensure that the property is returned to the rightful possessor, if it is not required to be produced before the Court at the time of inquiry or trial whenever it begins.
Once the property is seized by the Police under the circumstances mentioned above, irrespective of the fact whether the investigation by the police discloses an offence or not, the disposal of the property can only be ordered by the Court, and police have no power to order disposal of the seized property without an order of a judicial Magistrate under this section.
Before returning the property to the person from whose possession it was seized or recovered or to any other rightful possessor thereof, the Court has to ensure that two conditions are fulfilled, namely, (1) it must have been seized by the police; and (2) it is not required to be produced before the Court at the time of inquiry or trial. If the property is likely to be required for production before the Court in inquiry or trial, then it may be withheld.
The provisions of this section have no application in case of seizure by the officials of the forest department or the Excise or Customs department. Thus the seizure of a truck and a trolley by the Forest Ranger under the Wild Life Protection Act could not be said to be a seizure by the police within the meaning of Section 457 and, therefore, an application under this section is not maintainable.
Likewise, since the seizure by customs official cannot be said to be a seizure by the police, therefore, the Magistrate has no power under Section 457 to order release of the property seized by the customs officials.
In cases where the Magistrate has no power to hold inquiry or trial under the Code but only has the power to commit the case to the Court of Session, he will have no jurisdiction to pass an order of disposal of the seized property under Section 457 of CrPC.
In Moosakoya v. State of Kerala, the validity of confiscation of vehicle which was used for illegal transportation of sand was challenged. The High Court held that the District Collector was not vested with the power to confiscate a vehicle, hence vehicle seized was liable to be returned to the owner if he remits the amount fixed by the District Collector.
The Orissa High Court in Guru Charan Singh v. State of Orissa, held that on report of Police Officer of seizure of property to Magistrate having jurisdiction to try the offence, the Magistrate could release the seized property in interim custody of the owner under Section 457 of the Code of Criminal Procedure.