Home  /  Scheduled Castes and the Scheduled Tribes (Prevention of Atrocities) Act, 1989  /  Section 7

Section 7: Forfeiture of property of certain persons

Scheduled Castes and the Scheduled Tribes (Prevention of Atrocities) Act, 1989 • Official Statutory Text & Practice Guide

Statutory Regulation
Legal Standard
Competent Court / Tribunal
Act 1989
Section 6 All 23 Sections of Scheduled Castes and the Scheduled Tribes (Prevention of Atrocities) Act, 1989 Section 8

Legal Commentary & Landmark Judgments: Section 7

Section 7 provides the Special Court with formidable dual powers of property forfeiture and pre-trial attachment, enabling both the post-conviction forfeiture of movable or immovable assets used in committing an atrocity and the pendente lite attachment of an accused's estate to guarantee realization of statutory fines and victim compensation.

  • Post-Conviction Forfeiture of Property Used in Offence (Section 7(1)): Empowers the Special Court or Exclusive Special Court upon convicting an accused under Chapter II to declare by an order in writing that any property, movable or immovable, belonging to the convict and utilized in the commission of the offence shall stand forfeited to the Government.
  • Pre-Trial Attachment of Assets During Trial (Section 7(2)): Where an accused is facing trial under Chapter II, the Special Court has discretion to order the attachment of all or any of his properties, movable or immovable, during the pendency of the trial to prevent alienation, dissipation, or fraudulent transfers.
  • Nexus Requirement & Subjection to Realization of Fine: Property attached pre-trial is liable to forfeiture upon conviction to the extent necessary to satisfy fines imposed by the court. The fine realized is channeled under Section 15A and the 1995 Rules to victim compensation and rehabilitation. An order under Section 7 requires a demonstrable nexus and written judicial reasons.
Key Landmark Precedents:
  • State of M.P. v. Balram (2002) 2 SCC 476: The Supreme Court held that statutory forfeiture and attachment of private property must strictly adhere to procedural due process, recorded judicial satisfaction, and a direct causal nexus between the property and the crime to avoid arbitrary deprivation under Article 300A.
  • Biswanath Bhattacharya v. Union of India (2014) 4 SCC 392: Upheld statutory forfeiture provisions targeting properties used in crime or acquired through illegal means, affirming that economic deprivation of instrumentalities of crime is a legitimate penal measure under the Constitution.
  • R.S. Joshi v. Ajit Mills Ltd. (1977) 4 SCC 98: Reaffirmed that statutory forfeiture operates as a recognized constitutional and statutory punitive measure, functioning both as an economic penalty and as a deterrent against continuous statutory defiance.
Courtroom Practice & Strategic Litigation Guidance:

When resisting an application for pre-trial attachment under Section 7(2), demand that the prosecution or victim prove a prima facie risk of property dissipation and demonstrate that the property belongs exclusively to the accused and not to joint family coparceners or innocent third parties. In post-conviction forfeiture under Section 7(1), challenge any overbroad forfeiture by demonstrating that the asset (e.g., an entire agricultural field or commercial vehicle) was not an instrumentality directly used in the commission of the offence.

Section 6 All 23 Sections of Scheduled Castes and the Scheduled Tribes (Prevention of Atrocities) Act, 1989 Section 8