The Karnataka High Court has held that criminal courts must strictly follow the time limits prescribed under Section 497 of the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita (BNSS) for dealing with seized property. Justice M. Nagaprasanna said the statutory scheme requires the process to be completed within a total period of 45 days from seizure.
The ruling came in Mukesh Jain v. State of Karnataka, where the High Court found that the concerned Magistrate had failed to act within the timeline prescribed by law.
Background of the Case
The matter arose from a cybercrime investigation concerning alleged transactions involving about ₹4.83 crore and investments in unlisted shares through a Telegram group. A complaint was registered at the CEN Crime Police Station, Bengaluru, and the investigation later led to the petitioner being named.
Following a search, several articles were seized from the petitioner’s residence, including cash, gold ornaments, silver articles, cheque books, bank passbooks, watches and mobile phones. The petitioner subsequently filed I.A. No. III before the concerned Magistrate seeking disposal and interim custody of the seized property. However, the application remained pending despite arguments having been heard.
The petitioner therefore approached the High Court seeking a direction for expeditious disposal of his application.
Court's Observation
Justice M. Nagaprasanna examined Section 497 of the BNSS and compared it with the earlier Section 451 of the Code of Criminal Procedure.
The Court noted that Section 497 introduced specific timelines that were absent from the earlier provision. Under Section 497(2), the court or Magistrate must prepare a statement describing the seized property within 14 days of its production before the court. Thereafter, Section 497(5) requires an order concerning disposal, destruction, confiscation or delivery of the property within 30 days after preparation of the statement and necessary photographs or videography.
“Therefore, in all, the concerned Court is required to pass an order within 45 days from the date of the seizure,” the High Court observed.
The Court also referred to decisions of the Allahabad and Madras High Courts recognising the time-bound nature of Section 497 BNSS. It held that courts dealing with applications under Sections 497 and 503 must strictly adhere to the statutory mandate.
The High Court further relied on the Supreme Court's decision in Sunderbhai Ambalal Desai v. State of Gujarat, which stressed that seized property should be dealt with promptly and should not remain in police custody longer than necessary.
Decision
The Court found that the concerned Magistrate had not followed the statutory timeline and observed that the legislative mandate had effectively been rendered nugatory by the delay.
The writ petition was allowed. The High Court issued a mandamus directing the XLVII Additional Chief Metropolitan Magistrate, Bengaluru, to dispose of I.A. No. III dated September 3, 2025, within one week from receipt of the High Court's order, while keeping in mind the observations made in the judgment.
Case Details
- Case Title: Mukesh Jain v. State of Karnataka
- Case Number: Writ Petition No. 5267 of 2026 (GM-RES)
- Court: High Court of Karnataka at Bengaluru
- Decision Date: 7 July 2026
