Section 105C CrPC - Assistance in Relation to Orders of Attachment or Forfeiture of Property

Section 105C of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 formed part of Chapter VIIA dealing with reciprocal arrangements for assistance in certain matters and procedures for attachment and forfeiture of property. This article explains the provision as it applied under the CrPC before the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023 came into force.

Scope: Section 105C provided the statutory mechanism for an Indian Court to order attachment or forfeiture of property derived directly or indirectly from an offence and, where necessary, to seek execution of that order in a contracting State. It also dealt with incoming requests concerning property situated in India.

Text and Meaning of Section 105C CrPC

Sub-section (1): Where a Court in India has reasonable grounds to believe that property obtained by a person is derived or obtained, directly or indirectly, from the commission of an offence, it may make an order of attachment or forfeiture as it considers fit under Sections 105D to 105J.

Sub-section (2): If property covered by such an attachment or forfeiture order is suspected to be in a contracting State, the Court may issue a letter of request to a Court or authority in that State for execution of the order.

Sub-section (3): Where the Central Government receives a letter of request from a Court or authority in a contracting State seeking attachment or forfeiture of property in India derived directly or indirectly from an offence committed in that State, it may forward the request to an appropriate Court for execution under Sections 105D to 105J or other applicable law.

Important Legal Expressions

Reasonable grounds to believe

The power under sub-section (1) was conditioned on the Court having reasonable grounds to believe that the property was derived or obtained, directly or indirectly, from the commission of an offence. The provision therefore linked the attachment or forfeiture process to property having an alleged criminal origin.

Contracting State

For Chapter VIIA, the expression was defined in Section 105A CrPC. In substance, it referred to a country or place outside India with which arrangements had been made by the Central Government through a treaty or otherwise for enforcing the provisions of the Chapter.

Attachment and forfeiture

Section 105C operated together with Sections 105D to 105J. These provisions dealt with tracing and identifying unlawfully acquired property, seizure or attachment, management of property, notice of forfeiture, forfeiture in specified cases, fine in lieu of forfeiture, and certain transfers being treated as null and void.

How Section 105C Worked

The provision contemplated two reciprocal situations. First, an Indian Court could make an attachment or forfeiture order and seek assistance from a contracting State where the property was suspected to be located. Second, a contracting State could send a request concerning property situated in India; the Central Government could then forward that request to an appropriate Indian Court for execution according to the statutory procedure.

Related Procedure Under Sections 105D to 105J

Section 105D dealt with tracing and identifying unlawfully acquired property. Section 105E provided for seizure or attachment where property was likely to be concealed, transferred or otherwise dealt with, subject to confirmation by the Court within the statutory period. Sections 105F to 105J completed the framework governing management, notice, forfeiture, fine in lieu of forfeiture and specified transfers.

Position Before Implementation of BNSS

This page concerns the CrPC regime applicable before implementation of the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023. Section 105C should therefore be read in its historical statutory context together with Chapter VIIA of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 and the applicable saving and transitional provisions where proceedings span the change in criminal procedure law.

Key Point

Section 105C was a reciprocal legal-assistance provision focused on property connected with crime. It enabled attachment or forfeiture measures to operate across borders through Courts, the Central Government and authorities of contracting States, while requiring execution to follow the procedures prescribed by the CrPC and other applicable law.