Chapter 34 of the code of criminal procedure deals with the disposal of property under

criminal law. Ordinarily, disposal of property can be done through sale, transfer or
relinquished. But under criminal law, the property in question is not an ordinary proper or
article rather it is a property against which an offense has been committed or which has been
used for the commission of an offense and the procedure followed for the disposal is also
different. The procedure and remedies are well mentioned from section 452 to section 459 of
the code.

Section 457 – Procedure by police upon seizure of property

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 properly to the person entitled to the possession thereof,
or if such person cannot be ascertained, respecting the custody and production of such
property.

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.

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:—

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.
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.

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.

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.

Section 451 – Order for custody and disposal of property pending trial in certain cases

When any property is produced before any Criminal Court during an inquiry or trial, the
Court may make such order as it thinks fit for the proper custody of such property pending
the conclusion of the inquiry or trial, and, if the property is subject to speedy and natural
decay, or if it is otherwise expedient so to do, the Court may, after recording such evidence as
it thinks necessary, order it to be sold or otherwise disposed of.

Explanation – For the purposes of this section, “property” includes:

property of any kind or document which is produced before the Court or which is in its
custody.

any property regarding which an offence appears to have been committed or which appears to
have been used for the commission of any offence.

C.M. Mudaliar v. State of Gujarat1

Scope of Section 451 Cr.P.C. explained - Powers under Section 451 Cr.P.C. should be
exercised expeditiously and judiciously –

(1) for the proper custody pending conclusion of the inquiry or trial;

(2) to order it to be sold or otherwise disposed of, after recording such evidence as it think
necessary;

(3) if the property is subject to speedy and natural decay, to dispose of the same.

C. Criminal Procedure Code, Sections 451 - Case Property - Articles are not be kept for more
than 15 days to month - Disposal of case property:-

1. Valuable property such gold, silver should not be kept in Police Custody for years till trial
is over - Magistrate should pass appropriate orders as contemplated under Section 451
Cr.P.C. at the earliest.

2. Property be handed over to owner after -

(a) preparing detailed proper panchnama of such articles;

(b) taking photographs of such articles and a bond that such articles would be produced if
required at the time of trial; and

(c) after taking proper security.

1
Special Leave Petition (Crl.) No. 2755 of 2002
3. If property is not handed over on sapurdari, then such articles be kept in bank lockers.

4. Vehicles should not kept at police stations for long - These should be given in sapurdari by
taking adequate security - Vehicle should auctioned if there is no claimant.

5. For articles such as seized liquor also, prompt action should be taken in disposing it of
after preparing necessary panchnama.

6. For the Narcotic drugs also, for its identification, procedure under Section 451 Cr.P.C.
should be followed of recording evidence and disposal.

In the case of Sunderbai Ambalal Desai v. State of Gujarat 2, where the apex court stated that
the order regarding the custody of goods during the trial of the court is applicable to all the
categories of property.

The provision of Superdari states that the property is handed to the person by the court from
whose custody it was taken, unless there are any contrary claims. The order regarding
Superdari has to be passed by the magistrate only after that the police can further proceed.
Superdari basically means to hand the custody of a property to someone till the trial is being
processed. It is a temporary process. Sapurdari was used to recover money in the case
of Balbir Singh v. Commissioner of Income-tax3

2
(2000) SCC 143
3
(1984), 146 ITR 266 ,P.H