BNSS Section 497 | Mandatory 45-Day Disposal of Seized Property Non-Compliance Violates Property Rights : Karnataka HC

The Karnataka High Court has underscored the mandatory nature of the 45-day timeline prescribed under Section 497 of the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023 (BNSS) for the disposal of seized property. The judgment highlights the legislative intent to prevent undue deprivation of property rights and directs lower courts to strictly adhere to statutory timelines, marking a significant shift from the earlier regime under the CrPC.

Background & Facts

The Dispute

The petitioner, Mukesh Jain, was implicated in a criminal case registered under Crime No. 250 of 2025 for offences punishable under Sections 319(2) and 318(4) of the Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita (BNS) and Sections 66C and 66D of the Information Technology Act, 2000. The complaint was lodged by Manish Kumar, alleging that his brother, Rajath Jain, was defrauded of ₹4.83 crores through inducement to invest in unlisted shares via a Telegram group operated by Akashdeep Singh and his team. Rajath Jain transferred the amount to various bank accounts, including one allegedly linked to the petitioner, based on assurances of high returns.

Key Facts

• 01.03.2025 to 30.04.2025: Rajath Jain engaged in stock market trading and was induced to invest ₹4.83 crores in unlisted shares through a Telegram group titled ‘Unlisted Shares’.
• 08.07.2025: Manish Kumar lodged a complaint alleging fraud and cheating.
• Crime No. 250 of 2025: Registered for offences under Sections 319(2) and 318(4) of the BNS and Sections 66C and 66D of the IT Act.
• 07.08.2025: Further statement of Rajath Jain recorded, naming the petitioner and others.
• 13.08.2025: Search warrant issued under Section 96 of the BNSS; petitioner’s residence searched, and items including cash, gold ornaments, silver items, cheque books, bank passbooks, gold photo frames, watches, and mobile phones seized.
• Petitioner’s Defence: Denied ownership of any bank accounts mentioned in the complaint.

Procedural History

• 25.08.2025: Search and seizure conducted at the petitioner’s residence.
• 26.08.2025: Seizure report prepared and submitted to the concerned court.
• 03.09.2025: Petitioner filed I.A. No. III under Sections 497 and 503 of the BNSS, seeking interim custody of the seized property.
• 09.09.2025: Deadline for the court to prepare a statement of seized property under Section 497(2) of the BNSS (14 days from production).
• 18.09.2025: Police filed objections to the petitioner’s application.
• 09.10.2025: Deadline for the court to dispose of the property under Section 497(5) of the BNSS (30 days from preparation of the statement).
• 16.02.2026: Petitioner filed the present writ petition, alleging non-compliance with statutory timelines.

Relief Sought

The petitioner sought a direction to the XLVII Additional Chief Metropolitan Magistrate, Bengaluru, to dispose of I.A. No. III dated 03.09.2025 within one week, granting interim custody of the seized property.

The Legal Issue

The central question was whether Section 497 of the BNSS imposes a mandatory timeline for the disposal of seized property, and if so, whether the failure of the concerned court to adhere to this timeline amounts to a violation of statutory obligations and the petitioner’s right to property.

Arguments Presented

For the Petitioner

• Statutory Timeline: Relied on Section 497 of the BNSS, which mandates the preparation of a property statement within 14 days and disposal of the property within 30 days thereafter, totaling 45 days from seizure.
• Precedential Support: Cited Sunderbhai Ambalal Desai v. State of Gujarat ((2002) 10 SCC 283), which emphasized the need for expeditious disposal of seized property under Section 451 of the CrPC.
• New Legislative Framework: Highlighted that Section 497 of the BNSS expands the scope of Section 451 of the CrPC by introducing strict timelines, including during the investigation stage.
• Prejudice to Petitioner: Argued that the continued detention of seized articles, including essential items, caused grave prejudice to the petitioner, who was not an accused in the case.

For the Respondent

• Judicial Discretion: Contended that the court could not be compelled to dispose of the application within a specific timeline, as judicial processes require due consideration.
• No Pressure on Court: Submitted that the High Court should not interfere with the lower court’s discretion, leaving the decision to the court’s wisdom.

The Court's Analysis

The Court undertook a detailed examination of Section 497 of the BNSS, comparing it with its predecessor, Section 451 of the CrPC. Key observations included:

1. Expansion of Scope: Section 497(1) of the BNSS empowers courts to pass orders for the custody and disposal of property even during the investigation stage, a power not available under Section 451 of the CrPC.

2. Mandatory Timelines: Sub-sections (2) to (5) of Section 497 introduce strict timelines:

   • Section 497(2): Requires preparation of a property statement within 14 days of production.
   • Section 497(5): Mandates disposal of the property within 30 days of preparing the statement, totaling 45 days from seizure.

3. Judicial Precedents: The Court relied on judgments from the High Courts of Allahabad and Madras to interpret Section 497 of the BNSS:

   • Kanak Cattle Feeds Private Limited v. State of U.P. (Application U/S 528 BNSS No. 20 of 2024): Held that Section 497 of the BNSS is similar to Section 451 of the CrPC but introduces timelines for disposal, including during investigation.
   • R. Saiju v. The Superintendent of Police, Theni (WP. Cri.(MD) No. 436 of 2025): Emphasized that Section 497 of the BNSS prescribes a 45-day timeline for disposal, failing which the legislative scheme is defeated.

4. Apex Court’s Guidance: The Court referred to Sunderbhai Ambalal Desai v. State of Gujarat, where the Supreme Court laid down guidelines for the expeditious disposal of seized property under Section 451 of the CrPC, emphasizing:

   "The powers under Section 451 CrPC should be exercised expeditiously and judiciously. It would serve various purposes, namely:

   1. The owner of the article would not suffer because of its remaining unused or by its misappropriation;
   2. The court or the police would not be required to keep the article in safe custody;
   3. If the proper panchnama before handing over possession of the article is prepared, that can be used in evidence instead of its production before the court during the trial; and
   4. This jurisdiction of the court to record evidence should be exercised promptly so that there may not be further chance of tampering with the articles."

5. Failure to Comply: The Court noted that the concerned court failed to adhere to the 45-day timeline, rendering the statutory mandate nugatory. The timeline in the present case was as follows:

   • 25.08.2025: Seizure of property.
   • 26.08.2025: Seizure report submitted.
   • 09.09.2025: Deadline for preparation of property statement (Section 497(2)).
   • 09.10.2025: Deadline for disposal of property (Section 497(5)).
   • 16.02.2026: Petition filed before the High Court.

The Verdict

The Court allowed the writ petition and issued a writ of mandamus directing the XLVII Additional Chief Metropolitan Magistrate, Bengaluru, to dispose of I.A. No. III dated 03.09.2025 within one week from the receipt of the order. The Court emphasized the need for strict adherence to the 45-day timeline prescribed under Section 497 of the BNSS, bearing in mind the observations made in the judgment.

What This Means For Similar Cases

Strict Adherence to Statutory Timelines

• Mandatory Compliance: Courts must strictly adhere to the 45-day timeline under Section 497 of the BNSS for the disposal of seized property. Non-compliance amounts to a violation of statutory obligations.
• Judicial Accountability: Lower courts are now under an obligation to ensure timely disposal of applications for interim custody, failing which they may be subject to judicial intervention.

Protection of Property Rights

• Non-Accused Petitioners: The judgment reinforces that even individuals who are not accused in a case but whose property is seized are entitled to expeditious disposal of their applications for interim custody.
• Preventing Prejudice: Prolonged detention of seized property, especially essential items, can cause grave prejudice to the owner, warranting judicial intervention.

Expansion of Judicial Powers

• Investigation Stage: Section 497 of the BNSS expands the scope of judicial intervention to include the investigation stage, unlike Section 451 of the CrPC, which was limited to inquiries and trials.

• Evidence Preservation: The requirement to prepare a statement of property and photographic/videographic evidence under Section 497(2) and (3) ensures that seized property can be used as evidence without physical production during trial.

• Practitioners should:

  • File timely applications under Sections 497 and 503 of the BNSS for interim custody of seized property.
  • Highlight statutory timelines in their pleadings to ensure courts adhere to the 45-day mandate.
  • Seek judicial intervention where lower courts fail to comply with statutory timelines, citing this judgment as precedent.
  • Ensure proper documentation of seized property to facilitate its use as evidence in lieu of physical production.