Procedure by police upon seizure of property
Section 457 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 deals with 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 Act came into force on 01 Apr 1974. Repealed by section 531 of the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023 (46 of 2023) with effect from 1 July 2024, but conduct before that date is still charged, tried and appealed under it.
(1) 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 property to the person entitled to the possession thereof, or if such person cannot be ascertained, respecting the custody and production of such property.
(2) 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.
Section 457, The Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 (Act 2 of 1974).
Now in the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita
BNSS 503 Procedure by police upon seizure of property Text carried over almost unchanged 100%
Measured by comparing the text of the two provisions, not taken from an official correspondence table — there is no machine-readable one. See both texts side by side before relying on it.
Both regimes are live. The repealed enactment still governs what happened while it was in force. We never redirect one to the other.
Cross-references
Extracted from the operative text of the enactments themselves. Every destination below exists in our corpus.
Related judgements & precedents
These are some judgments that construed this section, and hold precedence value. They hold authority on how to read, interpret and use this section.
-
Writer Business Services Pvt. Ltd. v. State of Maharashtra
Court's Decision & Legal Precedent
Final Order order-5.pdf 2021-07-02 DATE VERIFIED. Bombay HC, A.S. Gadkari J. Crl WP 2079/2021. Applies Sunderbhai to return seized ATM cash (₹4.22 crore) under CrPC 451 and 457. Isolates 457 as the police-seizure / Magistrate-return procedure. Map crpc 457 + BNSS 503 successor (near-identical 1). Famous Sunderbhai SC PDF is ROP-only on SCIN010114492002. Do not pad crpc 451 (already filled).
On this section: CrPC 457 (with 451) lets the Magistrate return property seized by police pending trial; Sunderbhai applies to large cash seizures (Writer Business).
-
Y. Shyam Sunder Reddy v. State of Telangana
Court's Decision & Legal Precedent
Final Order order-1.pdf 2014-07-09 DATE VERIFIED. Telangana/Hyderabad HC, K.G. Shankar J. Crl P 7367/2014. Isolates Magistrate jurisdiction under CrPC 457 to grant interim custody of a seized vehicle even where a special Act (Excise) is invoked. Distinct 457 holding from Writer (cash-return / Sunderbhai). Map crpc 457 + BNSS 503 successor (near-identical 1). Do not pad the Excise Act.
On this section: CrPC 457 empowers the Magistrate to grant interim custody of property seized by police, including a vehicle, despite a special-Act seizure bar (Y. Shyam Sunder Reddy).
-
Ketan Ramanlal Doshi vs The State of Maharashtra
Court's Decision & Legal Precedent
Property owners are entitled to possession of their premises under Section 457 Criminal Procedure Code despite criminal proceedings against licensees, provided the application for sealing was made under an inapplicable legal provision. The proper legal framework for sealing premises in prostitution cases is Section 18(1) of the Immoral Traffic Prevention Act, not Section 105E Cr.P.C, which applies only to cases with reciprocal international arrangements. Licensees' rights are limited to contractual remedies under the Leave and License Agreement and cannot override the owner's fundamental property rights.
On this section: Applied by the court as the proper legal basis for return of seized property to the person entitled to possession; Court held property owners are entitled to delivery of the premises under this section
-
457 Crpc vs Thirunavalur P.S
Court's Decision & Legal Precedent
Seized property in criminal cases involving mineral-related offenses under the Mines and Minerals (Development and Regulation) Act must be handled through the statutory procedure prescribed under Section 22 of the Act and relevant Government Orders, and cannot be returned through individual petitions under CrPC Section 457 without following the designated authority's procedure.
On this section: Application for custody of seized property; court examined whether this section allows return of property seized in mineral theft cases without following statutory procedures
-
457 Crpc Cr No 13/24 vs Police Officer, Tirunelveli Police Station
Court's Decision & Legal Precedent
A vehicle seized in a criminal case under CrPC Section 457 can be recovered by the owner through a petition to the court. The police must produce the seized vehicle in court within a reasonable time (two weeks in this case). The vehicle can be released to the owner pending disposal of the criminal case, provided the owner files a separate petition after the criminal case is disposed of with a case disposal number. The court must balance the interests of the criminal investigation with the property rights of the owner and the deterioration of the seized property.
On this section: The petition was filed under CrPC Section 457, which deals with the procedure for recovery of property seized in criminal cases. The court applied this section to direct the police to produce the vehicle in court within two weeks.
-
Jagdish Chandra vs C.b.i.
Court's Decision & Legal Precedent
Hard discs on which intercepted telephone conversations have been recorded are electronic records and therefore documents within the meaning of Section 173(5)(a) read with Section 207(v) CrPC. The prosecution is obliged to furnish to the accused copies of only such documents that it proposes to rely upon as indicated in the charge sheet or of those already sent to the court during investigation. At the pre-charge stage, the trial court cannot direct the prosecution to furnish copies of documents other than those which it proposes to rely upon. However, where the charge sheet indicates that the prosecution is relying upon certain documents, the accused must be given access to those documents. In the instant case, the scope of the APFSL examination was to certify that the hard discs were properly functioning and that the calls copied on to the CDs were true copies of the original recordings in the hard discs. Only to this extent can it be said that the hard discs are being relied upon by the prosecution. The certification in terms of Section 65B(4) EA does not obviate the statutory requirement under Section 207(v) of providing to the accused access to the original recording of the relevant intercepted telephone conversation as a relied upon document. Therefore, the accused should be permitted to listen to the original recordings of the relevant intercepted telephonic conversations relied upon by the prosecution by having the said original recordings played directly from the hard discs in the presence of the accused or their representatives, their counsel and the learned Judge.
On this section: Seized documents required to be deposited in Court
-
G.suma vs The State of Ap.
Court's Decision & Legal Precedent
Interim custody of seized property can be granted to a legal heir or interested party pending criminal trial, subject to: (a) preparation of detailed panchanama with photographs; (b) furnishing of adequate security through immovable property bonds; (c) execution of undertaking to produce property as and when required; (d) undertaking that photographs and panchanama may be marked as evidence if property cannot be produced at trial; and (e) compliance with other terms and conditions imposed by the Court. The property remains under custodia legis and Court's control, and the owner should not suffer merely because the property is seized as evidence in a criminal case.
On this section: Pre-lite disposal of property in connection with cognizable offences; Court has control over property even if not brought before Court with Form-66
-
Dr.b.r.ambedkar Kala Samskarika Sangham vs State of Kerala Rep.by Home Secretary
Court's Decision & Legal Precedent
When administrative authorities demonstrate through credible evidence that they are actively taking steps to address a public interest concern and are pursuing the matter vigorously through appropriate legal channels, the court may decline to issue a mandamus order, trusting in the demonstrated commitment to resolution.
On this section: These sections govern the seizure and custody of property during criminal investigations. The court applied these provisions to establish the legal framework under which seized vehicles and goods are held and the procedures for their disposal.
The holding above is the ratio decidendi as extracted from the judgment by eCourts India, reproduced unaltered — it is a rendering of the court's reasoning, not a substitute for its words. Read the order itself before relying on it.
Judgments citing this section
These may be obiter dicta or a precedent, for you to study. These are the judgments where this section is quoted.
-
… The State Government has not constituted Special Courts so far. 4. If any complaint is made before any court, the parties can approach the courts for getting interim custody of vehicles, either under Section 451 or under Section 457 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973. Since the State has not constituted Special Courts, there cannot be any prosecution for the offence and without a prosecution, there cannot be any confiscation, assert the petitioners. If confiscation is not legal, the seizure would also be bad in the eye of law. 5. The …
-
… The State Government has not constituted Special Courts so far. 4. If any complaint is made before any court, the parties can approach the courts for getting interim custody of vehicles, either under Section 451 or under Section 457 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973. Since the State has not constituted Special Courts, there cannot be any prosecution for the offence and without a prosecution, there cannot be any confiscation, assert the petitioners. If confiscation is not legal, the seizure would also be bad in the eye of law. 5. The …
-
… The State Government has not constituted Special Courts so far. 4. If any complaint is made before any court, the parties can approach the courts for getting interim custody of vehicles, either under Section 451 or under Section 457 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973. Since the State has not constituted Special Courts, there cannot be any prosecution for the offence and without a prosecution, there cannot be any confiscation, assert the petitioners. If confiscation is not legal, the seizure would also be bad in the eye of law. 5. The …
Questions about Section 457
What have the courts held on Section 457 of the Code of Criminal Procedure?
Writer Business Services Pvt. Ltd. v. State of Maharashtra (02 Jul 2021) is the leading judgment on this section among those set out below: CrPC 457 (with 451) lets the Magistrate return property seized by police pending trial; Sunderbhai applies to large cash seizures (Writer Business). Another 7 judgments on this section are set out below. They run from 2008 to 2024.
How do I find court cases under Section 457 of the Code of Criminal Procedure?
In judgments and charge sheets this section is written several ways, and each form finds a different set of orders. These search the full text of every order eCourtsIndia holds, best matches first: CRPC 457, section 457 CRPC, section 457 of the Code of Criminal Procedure. Each opens the full list of orders on eCourtsIndia, where it can be narrowed by court, year and outcome. 8 reported judgments on this section are set out on this page, beginning with Writer Business Services Pvt. Ltd. v. State of Maharashtra (02 Jul 2021).
What should I read with Section 457 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, and has it changed?
2 other provisions in this corpus refer back to it. For anything done on or after 1 July 2024 the provision to read is BNSS 503 (Procedure by police upon seizure of property), which replaced it; conduct before that date is still charged, tried and appealed under this section.
When did Section 457 of the Code of Criminal Procedure come into force?
Section 457 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, cited as CRPC 457, came into force on 01 Apr 1974, having been enacted on 25 Jan 1974. It is no longer in force.
Other sections of this Act
- 320. Compounding of offences1554 words
- 167. Procedure when investigation cannot be completed in twenty four hours1005 words
- 220. Trial for more than one offence962 words
- 360. Order to release on probation of good conduct or after admonition804 words
- 2. Definitions799 words
- 198. Prosecution for offences against marriage774 words
Source and method. Compiled from the enactments of Parliament and of the State legislatures as published on India Code, and republished together with commentary and other original matter under section 52(1)(q)(ii) of the Copyright Act, 1957. Structured, cross-referenced and maintained by eCourtsIndia. Recovered from the consolidated text published by India Code (item 330a1099-77ad-4a2e-b22a-769b33398f9e). This page is not a substitute for legal advice.