Section 457 of CrPC

Source: Supreme Court  

Why in News? 

A Division Bench of Justice Sanjay Karol and Justice Augustine George Masih, in Krishnan Narayana v. State of Andhra Pradesh & Ors. (2026), held that a registration certificate alone cannot be treated as the sole or determinative factor while deciding entitlement to interim custody of seized vehicles under Sections 451 and 457 of the CrPC (Sections 497 and 503 BNSS), and that such determination requires a cumulative assessment of all attending circumstances. 

What was the Background of Krishnan Narayana v. State of Andhra Pradesh & Ors. (2026) Case? 

• The appellant was a director of M/s Pure Minerals and also held an 80% shareholding in the respondent company, M/s Earth Stein Private Limited. 
• The subject vehicles, one Bolero City Pick-up, three Excavators, and one Ashok Leyland Tipper, had been purchased in the name of M/s Pure Minerals between 2014 and 2022. 
• The appellant alleged that on August 31, 2023, the respondents committed criminal trespass into his factory and forcibly took away the vehicles. 
• A counter-FIR was lodged by the respondent company alleging that the appellant had misappropriated ₹1,73,11,894 from the company and used these funds to purchase the vehicles in the name of his own company. 
• Both the appellant and the respondents filed separate applications before the trial court seeking return of the vehicles; upon dismissal of their applications, they approached the Andhra Pradesh High Court. 
• By a common order, the High Court granted interim custody of the vehicles to the respondents, citing the pending criminal proceedings against the appellant for alleged misappropriation and the respondents' continued use of the vehicles for their mining operations at the time of seizure. 
• Aggrieved by the High Court's order, the appellant approached the Supreme Court, relying on Sunder Bhai Ambalal Desai v. State of Gujarat, (2002), to contend that seized vehicles should be released to the ostensible owner as per the registration certificate pending final disposal. 

What were the Court's Observations? 

• On the appellant's reliance on Sunder Bhai Ambalal Desai: The Court, in the judgment authored by Justice Masih, rejected the appellant's reliance on the precedent, clarifying that it does not lay down an inflexible rule that custody must invariably follow the registration certificate irrespective of other attending circumstances, and instead requires courts to act expeditiously and judiciously, having regard to the object of preventing misuse and deterioration of property. 
• On the scope of Sections 451 and 457 CrPC: The Court explained that these provisions empower courts to determine who is best entitled to interim possession of seized property, without deciding questions of title or ownership. It held that the use of the words "possession" and "custody" emphasises that the exercise does not amount to an adjudication of title, but merely a determination of interim possession aimed at preventing decay and diminution in the value of the property. 
• On the nature of the Court's assessment: The Court held that the exercise of this power requires only a prima facie assessment of who is best entitled to possession, having regard to the nature of the property, the circumstances of seizure, and the material on record, and does not comprise an adjudication of ownership, which falls within the exclusive domain of a competent civil forum. 
• On the circumstances favouring the respondent company: The Court found that the vehicles had been seized from the respondent's operational site where they remained in continuous use, that the appellant had executed an undertaking permitting the company to use the vehicles until settlement of accounts, and that loan instalments for the vehicles had been paid from the respondent company's account. Although the appellant alleged the undertaking was forged, the Court held that such disputes would have to be decided in separate proceedings. 
• On the weight of the registration certificate: The Court held that continued possession, undisputed payment of EMI instalments, and the undertaking on record considerably weakened the appellant's claim of exclusive individual entitlement and lent credence to the respondents' case of continued beneficial use and control, outweighing the appellant's reliance on the registration certificates alone. 
• On relief granted: Holding that the circumstances favouring the respondent company outweighed those favouring the appellant, the Court dismissed the appeal and affirmed the High Court's order granting interim custody of the vehicles to the respondents. 

What are Sections 497 and 503 of the BNSS? 

Section 497 BNSS – Order for custody and disposal of property pending trial in certain cases: 

• Sub-section (1) – Power of custody and disposal: When any property is produced before a Criminal Court, or before the Magistrate empowered to take cognizance or commit the case for trial, during any investigation, inquiry, or trial, the Court or Magistrate may pass such order as it thinks fit for the proper custody of the property pending conclusion of the proceedings. Where the property is subject to speedy and natural decay, or where it is otherwise expedient, the Court or Magistrate may, after recording such evidence as it considers necessary, order it to be sold or otherwise disposed of. 
• Explanation to sub-section (1) – Meaning of "property": For the purposes of this section, "property" includes (a) property of any kind or document produced before the Court or in its custody, and (b) any property in respect of which an offence appears to have been committed, or which appears to have been used for the commission of an offence. 
• Sub-section (2) – Preparation of statement of property: The Court or Magistrate must, within fourteen days from production of the property, prepare a statement of the property containing its description, in the form and manner prescribed by the State Government. 
• Sub-section (3) – Photography and videography: The Court or Magistrate must cause the property to be photographed, and videographed on a mobile phone or other electronic media, if necessary. 
• Sub-section (4) – Evidentiary value: The statement prepared under sub-section (2), along with the photograph or videography taken under sub-section (3), is to be used as evidence in any inquiry, trial, or other proceeding under the Sanhita. 
• Sub-section (5) – Timeline for disposal order: The Court or Magistrate must, within thirty days of preparing the statement under sub-section (2) and taking the photograph or videography under sub-section (3), order the disposal, destruction, confiscation, or delivery of the property in the manner specified under the succeeding provisions. 

Section 503 BNSS – Procedure by police upon seizure of property: 

• Sub-section (1) – Reporting of seizure to Magistrate: Whenever a police officer's seizure of property is reported to a Magistrate under the Sanhita, and the property is not produced before a Criminal Court during an inquiry or trial, the Magistrate may pass such order as he thinks fit regarding disposal of the property, or its delivery to the person entitled to possession. If such person cannot be ascertained, the Magistrate may instead pass orders respecting the custody and production of the property. 
• Sub-section (2) – Delivery to known claimant or proclamation for unknown claimant: Where the person entitled to the property is known, the Magistrate may order delivery to him on such conditions as the Magistrate thinks fit. Where such person is unknown, the Magistrate may detain the property and must issue a proclamation specifying the articles comprising the property, requiring any person with a claim to appear and establish it within six months from the date of the proclamation.