A court must adhere to legal procedures for cash seizure and attachment; failure to comply renders forfeiture orders invalid.

O R D E R

The petitioner is the sole accused in Crime No.1256 of 2024 registered at the Malappuram Police Station for offences punishable under Sections 111(3) and 111(7) of the Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita, 2023 . The crime is registered on the allegation that on 17.8.2024, at about 18.00 hours, at a place called Machingal in Malappuram, the petitioner was found in possession of Rs.10,44,000/- intended for distribution in violation of the laws relating to money exchange. After seizure and registration of the crime, the cash was produced in court. Thereupon, the petitioner filed an application under Section 497 of the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023 (BNSS) seeking release of the cash. The learned Magistrate, having dismissed the application for interim custody, this Crl.M.C. is filed.

2. The learned counsel for the petitioner points out that the only reason stated in the impugned order is that, as per Section 107 of the BNSS, proceeds of the crime is liable to be attached and forfeited to the Government. It is contended that the cash was seized under Section 106 of the BNSS and not under Section 107 and the seizure itself was not in accordance with the procedure prescribed in Section 107 .

3. Heard the learned Public Prosecutor also.

4. As rightly contended by the learned counsel for the petitioner, the application for interim custody of the cash is dismissed on the premise that it is proceeds of the crime, and hence liable to be attached and forfeited to the Government. If, as contended, the seizure was under Section 106 of the BNSS, no question of forfeiture under Section 107 arises. Even otherwise, for the court below to invoke the power of attachment, the seizure should have been in strict compliance of the procedure prescribed under the said provision. The prime requirement for the investigating ofÏcer is to obtain permission for effecting the attachment. No such procedure is seen followed in the petitioner’s case.