Legal Provisions of Section 452 of Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 (Cr.P.C.), India.
Order for disposal of property at conclusion of trial:
This section applies when an inquiry or trial is concluded. After an inquiry or trial is concluded it is the duty of the Court to order the disposal of the property regarding which an offence was alleged to have been committed.
ADVERTISEMENTS:
For the application of the provisions contained in this section, it is necessary that there must have been an inquiry or trial which must have been concluded and the property in respect of the order is sought to be made must be one (i) which has been produced before the Court; or (ii) which is in its custody, or (iii) regarding which the offence alleged was committed, and (iv) which has been used for commission of the offence.
While passing order under this section, the Court should exercise its judicial discretion and give reasons for choosing a particular mode of disposal. Though the section does not require issuance of any notice but it is desirable in the interest of law and justice that a prior notice and opportunity to be heard should be given to all such persons who are likely to be affected by the order of disposal of the property. However, Court is not expected to examine the witnesses or hold an elaborate enquiry in this regard.
Image Source : luna.edu
Generally, when the accused is acquitted of an offence in respect of any property, the Court orders its restoration to him if it had been recovered from his possession. But the accused cannot claim the restoration of seized property to him as a matter of right. The property used for the commission of an offence is not normally returned to the accused found guilty of the offence even though he might be the owner of that property.
ADVERTISEMENTS:
In a case, where the accused was convicted under the Prevention of Corruption Act for being found in possession of property disproportionate to his known source of income, the order of confiscation of the property in his possession for which he could not satisfactorily account was held to be valid under Section 452 of CrPC.
Where the title to the stolen property is uncertain or disputed and there is no sufficient evidence to show as to who is the actual owner of it, the Court of Session under Section 452 (3), may direct the property to be delivered to the Chief Judicial Magistrate who would deal with it in the manner as provided in Sections 457, 458 and 459 of the Code.
Where the Court orders destruction of the case property, it must ensure that the appeal or revision, if any, pending in respect of that property is finally disposed of. In the case of Lala Ram v. State (NCT) Delhi, the police had destroyed the property during pendency of an appeal, hence the Appellate Court was deprived of the opportunity of examining the weapons used for the offence. The High Court held it to be serious infirmity which was fatal to the prosecution case.
Section 452 (4) expressly provides that the carrying out of the order of disposal of case property should be stayed until the appeal from it is finally disposed of or until the appeal from the order or conviction or acquittal is disposed of by the appellate Court.