Legal Services India - Law Articles is a Treasure House of Legal Knowledge and information, the law resources is an ever growing database of authentic legal information.
Legal Services India

» Home
Monday, December 23, 2024

Karnataka HC Issues Guidelines For Magistrates Pertaining To Release Of Seized Properties U/S 451 & 457 Of CrPC

Posted in: Criminal Law
Wed, Oct 16, 24, 16:38, 2 Months ago
star star star star star
0 out of 5 with 0 ratings
comments: 0 - hits: 17906
Vishal Ramesh Khatwani vs Karnataka that the High Court deemed it entirely fit to allow the revision petition and issued a plethora of most commendable directions for Magistrates that have to be followed most punctually while dealing with the release of the seized properties under Section 451 and Section 457 of CrPC

In a major breakthrough, it would be imperative to note that the Karnataka High Court in a most progressive, pragmatic, pertinent and persuasive step with far reaching implications in a most learned, laudable, landmark, logical and latest judgment titled Vishal Ramesh Khatwani vs The State of Karnataka in CRL.RP No.210/2024 and cited in 2024 LiveLaw (Kar) 437 that was pronounced as recently as on October 4, 2024 has issued detailed guidelines for Magistrates pertaining to the release of seized properties like mobile phones, laptops seized during criminal case investigation under Sections 451 and 457 of the Criminal Procedure Code (CrPC) or under Section 497 of the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023 (BNSS) till the State Government issues directions in this regard.

It must be disclosed here that the High Court was dealing with a criminal revision petition that had been filed under Section 397 of the CrPC seeking reliefs. It must be noted that the High Court deemed it entirely fit to allow the revision petition and issued a plethora of most commendable directions for Magistrates that have to be followed most punctually while dealing with the release of the seized properties under Section 451 and Section 457 of CrPC!

At the very outset, this brief, brilliant, bold and balanced judgment authored by the Single Judge Bench comprising of Hon’ble Mr Justice V. Srishananda sets the ball in motion by first and foremost putting forth in para 1 that:
This revision petition is filed by the applicant under Section 397 Criminal Procedure Code, 1973 with the following prayer:

Whereof the Petitioner respectfully prays that this Hon’ble Court be pleased to:

 

  1. Call for the Records connected with the Order dated 09.11.2023 made by the learned VIII Additional Chief Metropolitan Magistrate, in Crime No. 256/2023 and examine the same and set aside the Order dated 09.11.2023 and allow the application dated 03.11.2023.and
  2. Grant such other relief as this Hon’ble Court deems fit under the circumstances of the case including cost of this proceedings in the interest of Justices.


To put things in perspective, the Bench envisages in para 2 that:
Facts in brief which are utmost necessary for disposal of the revision petition are as under:

Upon the complaint lodged by Smt. Komathi, W/o Nagesh, a case came to be registered in Cr.No.256/2023 by Sanjay Nagar Police for the offence punishable under Section 380 and 457 IPC.

Be it noted, the Bench then notes in para 45 that:
Further, it is noticed that State Government is required to frame necessary rules which would be in consonance with the power of the Court for disposal of all the seized properties including the electronic devices, digital devices, seized medical samples, food items, adulterated petroleum products which are highly inflammable in nature, perishable objects, precious metals like gold and silver etc.

Quite significantly, it is worth noting that the Bench notes in para 46 that, Till such time, the directions issued by this Court would serve as model guidelines for the Trial Magistrate while dealing with release of the seized properties either under Section 451 and 457 Cr.P.C., or under Section 497 of BNSS.

Most significantly, the Bench then encapsulates in para 47 what constitutes the cornerstone of this notable judgment postulating that:
As such, the following directions are issued which would cover in general the disposal of the properties as is contemplated under Section 451 and 457 of Cr.P.C., and presently under the provisions of Section 497 of Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023 (‘BNSS’ for short).

Directions/Guidelines:

  1. Description of the seized property shall be incorporated in the seizure mahazar so as to distinctly identify the seized property at all stages in the criminal trial.
  2. Mahazar shall include serial numbers, make of the seized property, manufacturers name, if any, distinctive marks, if any, hall mark, if any, on the gold and silver articles with distinct numbers.
  3. Mahazar shall include approximate value of the seized property (estimation of valuation to be obtained from the registered valuers wherever necessary). It shall accompany the P.F. Memo when it is placed before the learned Trial Magistrate.
  4. Trial Magistrate shall verify the contents of mahazar with aforesaid details and personally examine the seized properties and satisfy that the seized properties are tallying with the description made in the mahazar and P.F. Memo.
  5. Unless specific grounds/reasons are made out by the Investigating Agency, seized property shall not be allowed to be retained by the Investigating Agency.
  6. Even if the request for retention is allowed, the learned Trial Magistrate instead of passing a mechanical order by initialing on the readymade seal with words ‘permitted to retain’, pass a suitable speaking order in the order sheet of the case, directing the Investigating Agency that they would be retaining the property as a ‘Bailee’ and ensure that proper care is taken to preserve the seized property.
  7. Learned Trial Magistrate shall ensure that proper infrastructure is available with the police for preservation of the seized material objects and must report to the Court as to its status when the charge sheet is filed.
  8. If the seized property is sent to the Forensic Science Laboratory, Investigating Agency shall ensure that the property is sent in a proper sealed condition and seals are intact, at all levels.
  9. Whenever the property is ordered to be retained by the Investigating Agency, and if an application seeking release is rejected, after the investigation, and if the need of retaining property is not imperative, the Court may pass suitable orders with regard to the interim disposal of the property.
  10. Learned Trial Magistrates/learned Sessions Judges are hereby directed to ensure the disposal of the property in respect of Narcotic drugs and psychotropic substances as per the directions of the Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of Union of India vs. Mohanlal and another, reported in (2016) 3 Supreme Court Cases 379.
  11. In case of seizure of the vehicles, the standard operating procedure and the amendment to the Rule 232G of Karnataka Motor Vehicles (Amendment) Rules, 2018 shall be borne in mind by the learned Trial Magistrate while disposing of the application filed under Section 451 and 457 Cr.P.C., or under Section 497 of BNSS.
  12. In respect of the electronic and digital material objects, the learned Trial Magistrate shall ensure that the same are retained by the police under retention order to ensure that the same are not exposed to the atmospheric moisture, resulting in damage to the seized electronic equipment or data stored therein.
  13. Necessary directions in this regard shall be made in the order while P.F. Memo is filed into the Court seeking retention of the seized electronic items, Compact Disc, Pendrives, and such other storage media when produced and ordered to be retained shall be properly preserved by taking necessary precautions so as to avoid damage to the data stored therein which may have a direct bearing on the merits of the trial.
  14. Precious items like Gold, Silver shall not ordinarily be retained with the Investigating Agency unless the same is required for investigation purposes like identity, fingerprint examination etc., and wherever it is necessary, photographs/videographs of the seized material objects can be ordered to be returned to the applicant after deciding the rival claim, if any.
  15. In respect of the explosives, inflammable substances, like adulterated petroleum products, gas cylinders etc., the learned Trial Magistrate shall ensure the safety of the seized material objects, not only the safety of seized material objects and possible accidents in the place where it is stored and pass suitable orders.
  16. In respect of perishable items, the learned Trial Magistrate without loss of time, shall consider the application and pass suitable orders like auctioning the perishable items and directing the auction money to be kept in ‘escrow account’ subject to the final result of the criminal proceedings.
  17. In respect of the seized material objects under the special enactments like Essential Commodities Act etc., learned Trial Magistrate shall strictly adhere to the rules and regulations under the special enactment and pass appropriate orders as early as possible.
  18. In respect of seized cash, photograph/videograph of the currency notes to be taken and serial numbers of the seized currency notes shall be written in a mahazar. Immediate steps are to be taken to deposit the currency notes to the Reserve Bank of India and the value of the currency notes thereof shall be ordered to be returned to the successful party at the end of the trial.

For sake of clarity, the Bench then clarifies in para 48 propounding that, These directions are only indicative and not exhaustive and would serve and guide broadly the power to be exercised by the learned Trial Magistrate or Revisional Courts as the case may be in disposal of the seized properties under Section 451 and 457 Cr.P.C., and 497 of BNSS.

Finally, the Bench then concludes by expounding in para 49 directing that:
In view of the above discussion, following order is passed:

ORDER
Criminal Revision petition is allowed.

The application filed by the applicant seeking interim custody of the above referred material objects is allowed on following conditions:

  1. Revision petitioner shall execute an indemnity bond to the tune of Rs. 40,00,000/-.
  2. Revision petitioner is hereby directed to take the photographs and videographs of the seized material objects, for which the Investigating Agency shall cooperate and produce the same before the Court in a pen drive.
  3. Revision petitioner shall not alter the identity of the seized material objects and in case, if there is a deterioration in value, may apply for sale of the material objects after the same is identified before the Court of law by examining the mahazar witnesses inasmuch as the charge sheet is already filed.
  4. If any such application is made, learned Trial Magistrate is at liberty to pass appropriate order.
  5. Revision petitioner shall produce the material objects as and when directed.



Sanjeev Sirohi, Advocate,
s/o Col (Retd) BPS Sirohi, A 82, Defence Enclave,
Sardhana Road, Kankerkhera, Meerut - 250001, Uttar Pradesh.

Legal Services India

Comments

There are no comments for this article.
Only authorized users can leave comments. Please sign in first, or register a free account.
Share
Sponsor
About Author
Sanjeev Sirohi Advocate
Member since Apr 20, 2018
Location: Meerut, UP
Following
User not following anyone yet.
You might also like
The general principle, is that a FIR cannot be depended upon a substantive piece of evidence.The article discusses the general priciple, along with exceptions to it.
Victim plays an important role in the criminal justice system but his/her welfare is not given due regard by the state instrumentality. Thus, the role of High Courts or the Supreme Court in our country in affirming and establishing their rights is dwelt in this article.
Can anybody really know what is going inside the heads of criminal lawyers? I mean, yes, we can pick bits of their intelligence during courtroom trials and through the legal documents that they draft.
Terrorism and organized crimes are interrelated in myriad forms. Infact in many illustration terrorism and organized crimes have converged and mutated.
Right to a copy of police report and other documents As per section 207 of CrPC, accused has the right to be furnished with the following in case the proceeding has been initiated on a police report:
In terms of Section 2 of the Protection of Human Rights Act, 1993 hereafter referred to as 'the Act'), "human rights" means the rights relating to life, liberty, equality and dignity of the individual guaranteed under the Constitution
The Oxford dictionary defines police as an official organization whose job is to make people obey the law and to prevent and solve crime
the Supreme Court let off three gang rapists after they claimed a ‘compromise formula’ with the victim and agreed to pay her a fine of Rs 50,000 each for their offence.
benefit those prisoners who are kept in solitary confinement, the Uttarakhand High Court delivered a landmark judgment in the case of State of Uttarakhand v 1. Mehtab s/o Tahir Hassan 2. Sushil @Bhura s/o Gulab Singh Criminal Reference No. 1 of 2014 on April 27, 2018
this article helps you knowing how to become a criminal lawyer
helps you to know adultery and its types
In the landmark case of Manoj Singh Pawar v State of Uttarakhand & others Writ Petition (PIL) No. 156 of 2016 which was delivered on June 18, 2018, the Uttarakhand High Court issued a slew of landmark directions
Scope and ambit of Section 6 of Indian Evidence Act,1872
Victims of Crime Can Seek Cancellation of Bail: MP HC in Mahesh Pahade vs State of MP
State of Orissa v Mahimananda Mishra said clearly and convincingly that the court must not go deep into merits of the matter while considering an application for bail and all that needs to be established from the record is the existence of a prima facie case against the accused.
Yashwant v Maharashtra while the conviction of some police officers involved in a custodial torture which led to the death of a man was upheld, the Apex Court underscored on the need to develop and recognize the concept of democratic policing wherein crime control is not the only end, but the means to achieve this order is also equally important.
20 more people guilty of killing a 60-year-old Dalit man and his physically-challenged daughter. Upheld acquittals of 21 other accused, holding that there was insufficient evidence to establish their guilt. So it was but natural that they had to be acquitted
No person accused of an offence punishable for offences involving commercial quantity shall be released on bail or on his own bond unless
Accident under section 80 under the Indian Penal Code falls under the chapter of general exceptions. This article was made with the objective of keeping in mind the students of law who are nowadays in dire need of material which simplify the law than complicating it.
Nishan Singh v State of Punjab. Has ordered one Nishan Singh Brar, convicted of abduction and rape of a minor victim girl, and his mother Navjot Kaur to pay Rs 90 lakh towards compensation.
Rajesh Sharma v State of UP to regulate the purported gross misuse of Section 498A IPC have been modified just recently in a latest judgment titled Social Action Forum Manav for Manav Adhikar and another v Union of India Ministry of Law and Justice and others.
Kodungallur Film Society vs. Union of India has issued comprehensive guidelines to control vandalism by protesting mobs. Vandalism is vandalism and it cannot be justified under any circumstances. Those who indulge in it and those who instigate it must all be held clearly accountable and made to pay for what they have done most shamefully.
Ram Lal vs. State of Himachal Pradesh If the court is satisfied that if the confession is voluntary, the conviction can be based upon the same. Rule of prudence does not require that each and every circumstance mentioned in the confession must be separately and independently corroborated. Absolutely right There can be no denying it
Joseph Shine case struck down the law of adultery under Section 497. It declared that adultery can be a ground for civil issues including dissolution of marriages but it cannot be a criminal offence. It invalidated the Section 497 of IPC as a violation of Articles 14 and 15 and under Article 21 of the Constitution
Mallikarjun Kodagali (Dead) represented through Legal Representatives v/s Karnataka, Had no hesitation to concede right from the start while underscoring the rights of victims of crime that, The rights of victims of crime is a subject that has, unfortunately, only drawn sporadic attention of Parliament, the judiciary and civil society.
State of Kerala v Rasheed observed that while deciding an application to defer cross examination under Section 231(2) of the Cr.P.C. a balance must be struck between the rights of the accused, and the prerogative of the prosecution to lead evidence. The Apex Court in this landmark judgment also listed out practical guidelines.
Reena Hazarika v State of Assam that a solemn duty is cast on the court in the dispensation of justice to adequately consider the defence of the accused taken under Section 313 CrPC and to either accept or reject the same for reasons specified in writing.
Zulfikar Nasir & Ors v UP has set aside the trial court judgment that had acquitted 16 Provincial Armed Constabulary (PAC) officials in the 1987 Hashimpur mass murder case. The Delhi High Court has convicted all the accused and sentenced them to life imprisonment.
In Babasaheb Maruti Kamble v Maharashtra it was held that the Special Leave Petitions filed in those cases where death sentence is awarded by the courts below, should not be dismissed without giving reasons, at least qua death sentence.
Shambhir & Ors v State upholding the conviction and punishment of over 80 rioters has brought some solace to all those affected people who lost their near and dear ones in the ghastly 1984 anti-Sikh riots which brought disrepute to our country and alienated many Sikhs from the national mainstream
Naman Singh alias Naman Pratap Singh and another vs. UP, Supreme Court held a reading of the FIR reveals that the police has registered the F.I.R on directions of the Sub-Divisional Magistrate which was clearly impermissible in the law.
It has been a long and gruelling wait of 34 long years for the survivors of 1984 anti-Sikh riots to finally see one big leader Sajjan Kumar being sentenced to life term by Delhi High Court
Rajendra Pralhadrao Wasnik v State of Maharashtra held that criminals are also entitled to life of dignity and probability of reformation/rehabilitation to be seriously and earnestly considered before awarding death sentence. It will help us better understand and appreciate the intricacies of law.
Sukhlal v The State of Madhya Pradesh 'life imprisonment is the rule and death penalty is the exception' has laid down clearly that even when a crime is heinous or brutal, it may not still fall under the rarest of rare category.
Deepak v State of Madhya Pradesh in which has served to clarify the entire legal position under Section 319 CrPC, upheld a trial court order under Section 319 of the CrPc summoning accused who were in the past discharged by it ignoring the supplementary charge sheet against them.
It has to be said right at the outset that in a major reprieve for all the political leaders accused of being involved in the Sohrabuddin fake encounter case, in CBI, Mumbai vs Dahyaji Goharji Vanzara
Devi Lal v State of Rajasthan the Supreme Court has dispelled all misconceived notions about suspicion and reiterated that,
Madhya Pradesh v Kalyan Singh has finally set all doubts to rest on the nagging question of whether offences under Section 307 of IPC can be quashed on the basis of settlement between parties.
Dr Dhruvaram Murlidhar Sonar v Maharashtra made it amply clear that if a person had not made the promise to marry with the sole intention to seduce a woman to indulge in sexual acts, such an act would not amount to rape.
Rajesh v State of Haryana conviction under Section 306 of the Indian Penal Code (Abetment of Suicide) is not sustainable on the allegation of harassment without there being any positive action proximate to the time of occurrence on the part of the accused, which led or compelled the person to commit suicide.
Nand Kishore v Madhya Pradesh has commuted to life imprisonment the death sentence which was earlier confirmed by the Madhya Pradesh High Court of a convicted for the rape and murder of an eight-year-old girl.
Raju Jagdish Paswan v. Maharashtra has commuted the death penalty of a man accused of rape and murder of a nine year old girl and sentenced him to 30 years imprisonment without remission.
Swapan Kumar Chatterjee v CBI permitting the application filed by the prosecution for summoning a hand writing expert in a corruption case of which the trial had started in 1985. On expected lines, the Bench accordingly delivered its significant judgment thus laying down the correct proposition of law to be followed always in such cases
Sukhpal Singh v Punjab that the inability of the prosecution to establish motive in a case of circumstantial evidence is not always fatal to the prosecution case. Importance of motive in determining the culpability of the accused but refused to acknowledge it as the sole criteria for not convicting the accused in the absence of motive.
Gagan Kumar v Punjab it is a mandatory legal requirement for Magistrate to specify whether sentences awarded to an accused convicted for two or more offences, would run concurrently or consecutively.
Dnyaneshwar Suresh Borkar v Maharashtra Even poem can help save a death convict from gallows. The Apex Court has in this latest, landmark and laudable judgment commuted the death penalty of a kidnap cum murder convict who was just 22 years of age at the time of occurrence
Himachal Pradesh v Vijay Kumar Supreme court held about acid attack crime that a crime of this nature does not deserve any kind of clemency.
Death Sentence Can Be Imposed Only When Life Imprisonment Appears To Be An Altogether Inappropriate Punishment: SC
S. Sreesanth v. The Board of Control For Cricket In India the Supreme Court set aside a life ban imposed on former Indian cricketer S Sreesanth in connection with the 2013 IPL spot-fixing scandal and asked the BCCI Disciplinary Committee to take a fresh call on the quantum of his punishment under the Anti-Corruption Code.
Adding Additional Accused To Invoke Section 319 CrPC Stronger Evidence Than Mere Probability of Complicity of A Person Required: SC stated in Sugreev Kumar v. State of Punjab
Top