Consider the following statements with regard to seizure of property under the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973:
- 1. Any police officer may seize any property which may be suspected to be stolen.
- 2. Any police officer may seize any property which may be found under circumstances which create suspicion of the commission of any offence.
- 3. If the value of the property seized is less than one thousand rupees and the person entitled to its possession is absent, the court may direct its sale by auction forthwith.
Which of the statements given above is/are correct?
1 only
1 and 2 only
1, 2 and 3
3 only
Answer is Right!
Answer is Wrong!
This question was previously asked in
UPSC CISF-AC-EXE – 2024
– Statement 2: Section 102(1) further empowers any police officer to seize “any property which may be found under circumstances which create suspicion of the commission of any offence”. This covers a broad range of properties involved in or connected to crimes. This statement is correct.
– Statement 3: CrPC provides procedures for the custody and disposal of seized property (Sections 451-459). While Magistrates have the power to order the sale of property, particularly if it is subject to speedy and natural decay or if its value is less than ₹500 (as per Section 457(1) in some versions, though the threshold varies and may be updated) or if no claimant appears within six months (Section 458), there is no general provision stating that property less than ₹1000 in value with an absent owner *must* or *may* be sold by auction forthwith. The procedure typically involves reporting to the Magistrate, proclamation, and waiting for claimants before final disposal, including sale. The condition of “forthwith” sale based solely on value and absence is not a standard provision in CrPC.