SCOI on Custody of Seized Property: Guidelines for Magistrates

In Sunderbhai Ambalal Desai v. State of Gujarat (2002 Supp (3) SCR 39), the Supreme Court confronted a systemic problem that continues to plague criminal justice seized articles lying for years in police stations, vulnerable to decay, theft, and misuse.

What's The Matter?

The case itself involved allegations against police officials accused of misappropriating “muddamal” articles such as gold ornaments, currency, and vehicles seized during investigations. But in addressing the issue, the Court went beyond the facts of the case to lay down enduring directions under Sections 451 and 457 of the Code of Criminal Procedure (CrPC).

"S.451. Order for custody and disposal of property pending trial in certain cases.-When any property is produced before any Criminal Court during any 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 (a) property of any kind or document which is produced before the Court or which is in its custody. (b) any property regarding which an offence appears to have been committed or which appears to have been used for the commission of any offence.

S.457. Procedure by police upon seizure of property.- (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."

What Court Said?

The Court observed that wide powers already exist under Section 451 CrPC for magistrates to order the custody, sale, or disposal of seized property. Yet, in practice, these powers were seldom exercised expeditiously, resulting in heaps of unused, deteriorating property piling up in police custody.

This, the Court noted, harmed both the State and citizens, whose belongings were either misappropriated or reduced to junk by years of neglect.

Relying on earlier precedent in Basawa Kom Dyanmangouda Patil v. State of Mysore (1977) 4 SCC 358, the Bench of Justices M.B. Shah and D.M. Dharmadhikari emphasized that seized property is an entrustment to the State, and the aim of the Code is to return it to rightful owners as soon as its evidentiary purpose is over. Courts, therefore, must not prolong custody unnecessarily.

The judgment provided detailed guidance:

Valuable articles like gold or silver ornaments should be released to the complainant promptly after preparing a detailed panchanama, taking photographs, and securing a bond for production during trial.

Vehicles, often left to rot in police stations, should be returned to owners or insurers on bond and security, or auctioned within six months if unclaimed.

Perishable items such as liquor or narcotics should be sampled and disposed of without delay, avoiding long-term storage.

Magistrates must act within 15–30 days to prevent tampering or misappropriation, with High Court registries supervising compliance.

The ruling thus transformed a criminal petition into a seminal directive for judicial administration, marrying procedural efficiency with protection of property rights. By insisting on prompt exercise of CrPC powers, the Court sought to balance the evidentiary needs of criminal trials with the imperative of safeguarding citizens from unnecessary loss.

This case remains a cornerstone in procedural law, cited repeatedly to remind trial courts and magistrates of their proactive duty to manage seized property responsibly. In effect, it established that the criminal justice system must not itself become the cause of injustice by allowing property to decay or disappear in endless limbo.