\n– Statement 1: Section 102(1) of CrPC explicitly empowers any police officer to seize “any property which may be alleged or suspected to have been stolen”. This statement is correct.
\n– 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.
\n– 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 \u20b9500 (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 \u20b91000 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.
\n<\/section>\n