S.451 CrPC | Seized Property Ought Not To Remain In Police/ Court Custody For Longer Than Absolutely Necessary: Kerala High Court
The Kerala High Court on Friday analysed the scope of Section 451 CrPC which empowers the criminal courts to make orders for interim custody of seized property produced before it during trial and inquiry of an offence.The Single Judge Bench of Justice Raja Vijayaraghavan V. was of the considered view that when a property is so produced before the criminal court, the said court would have...
The Kerala High Court on Friday analysed the scope of Section 451 CrPC which empowers the criminal courts to make orders for interim custody of seized property produced before it during trial and inquiry of an offence.
The Single Judge Bench of Justice Raja Vijayaraghavan V. was of the considered view that when a property is so produced before the criminal court, the said court would have the discretion to make such an order as it thinks fit for the proper custody of such article, pending the conclusion of the enquiry or trial. However, it cuationed,
"Where the property, which has been the subject matter of an offence, is seized by the police, it ought not to be retained in the custody of the Court or of the police for any time longer than what is absolutely necessary. As the seizure of the property by the police amounts to a clear entrustment of the property to a Government servant, the idea is that the property should be restored to the original owner after the necessity to retain it ceases."
Pursuant to an allegation of transporting 50 bottles of Old Admiral VSOP brandy in a 'Mahindra Pickup Jeep', the said vehicle was seized for violating the provisions of the Abkari Act. One Chenjamma, who is the registered owner of the vehicle, had approached the Magistrate seeking release of the vehicle, but could not get the same released due to the "onerous" nature of the conditions imposed by the Magistrate, such as to execute a bond by way of cash security for the value of Rs.6,30,000/-. The vehicle was thus lying exposed to the changing weather for the past two years, during the course of which the said Chenjamma passed away.
Subsequently, her son's application before the Sessions Court was rejected on the ground that he had not been able to explain how the vehicle happened to be seized. The present petition thus challenges the said decision of the Sessions Court.
The Court in this case was of the view that the court below was not justified in rejecting the application and that under Section 451 CrPC, when a property has been seized by the police, it ought not to be retained in the custody of the Court or of the police for any time longer than absolutely necessary.
Explaining the provision, the Court said that for releasing the vehicle, the Court may follow the procedure of recording such evidence, as it thinks necessary, as provided under Section 451 CrPC, and bond and security also ought to be taken so as to prevent the evidence being lost, altered or destroyed.
"The aspect of possession and the right of possession alone had to be considered by the court below in the ordinary course. Furthermore, the powers under Section 451 Cr.P.C. should be exercised expeditiously and judiciously as it would serve various salutary purposes. The Court below ought to have realized that the owner of the article would not suffer because of its remaining unused or by its misappropriation. The Court or the police would not be required to keep the article in safe custody and further if the possession of article is handed over after preparing a proper mahazar, the same could have been used in evidence instead of its production before the Court during the trial," the Court added, while opining that the Sessions Court had not adverted to the above aspects while rejecting the application.
The Court also took note of the possibility of the vehicle deteriorating 'a great deal' and its value coming down.
It thus directed the Sessions Judge to forthwith release the vehicle after obtaining fresh valuation as per the provisions of Section 53B of the Abkari Act ('Jurisdiction of courts on cuticles seized').
The petitioner was represented by Advocates V. Visal Ajayan and Rajesh Kumar R. Senior Public Prosecutor Neema T.V. appeared on behalf of the State.
Case Title: Vinayakumar K.R. v. State of Kerala
Citation: 2023 LiveLaw (Ker) 434
Case Number: CRL.MC NO. 6818 OF 2023