List of Current Affairs

Source: Allahabad High Court

Why in News? 

A Division Bench of the Allahabad High Court comprising Justice Ajit Kumar and Justice Swarupama Chaturvedi, in the case of Ashish Rawat v. Union of India & 6 Others (2026), held that police are not required to serve prior notice before seizing or attaching property under Section 106 of the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023 (BNSS). The Court also clarified that a bank account cannot be frozen in its entirety — only the amount suspected to be connected with the offence may be held in lien.

What was the Background of Ashish Rawat v. Union of India & 6 Others (2026) Case? 

• Multiple petitioners approached the Allahabad High Court seeking de-freezing of their bank accounts while investigations into cyber offences concerning those accounts were pending. 
• Several petitioners contended that their accounts had been frozen without any prior notice, or only on the basis of an oral instruction. 
• The Court framed the following questions for determination:  
  • Whether 'property' under Section 106 BNSS includes the entire bank account of the person, or only the amount alleged to be stolen or suspected to be connected with an offence. 
  • Whether bank accounts can be frozen under Section 106 BNSS without prior intimation to the account holder. 
  • Whether Sections 106 and 107 of BNSS operate independently and distinctly from each other.

What were the Court's Observations? 

The Court made the following key observations: 

No Prior Notice Required Under Section 106: 

• Section 106 BNSS confers direct power on the police to seize property alleged or suspected to have been stolen, or found in circumstances creating suspicion of the commission of an offence. 
• There is no requirement in the statutory scheme for prior notice to the owner or for obtaining a court order before seizure — unlike Section 107, which mandates a show cause notice from the Magistrate. 
• Any contrary interpretation would curtail the powers of the police and defeat the purpose of the provision, which is to preserve property and prevent its further misuse, especially in cyber crime cases where delay may defeat the ends of justice. 

Restriction on Freezing Entire Bank Account: 

• The Court held that the proviso to Section 106 confines seizure only to property suspected to be stolen or linked to the offence. 
• Accordingly, the entire bank account cannot be seized and its full operation cannot be stopped — only the amount connected to the crime may be held in lien. 

Post-Seizure Intimation to Account Holders: 

• While prior notice is not mandated, the Court held that banks shall inform account holders of the freezing of their accounts after seizure, upon instructions from the investigating agency. 
• As consumers of the bank, account holders are entitled to be informed so as to protect themselves from hardships and to seek appropriate legal recourse. 

Sections 106 and 107 Operate Independently: 

• Section 106 is designed for immediate action by the police during investigation. 
• Section 107 is precautionary in nature and involves an elaborate procedure — prior permission from the Superintendent of Police or Commissioner of Police, an application before the Magistrate, and a show cause notice to the person whose property is sought to be attached. 
• Both provisions operate at different stages and are independent of each other; invocation of one does not automatically attract the other.

What is Section 106 of BNSS? 

Section 106 BNSS – Power of Police Officer to Seize Certain Property: 

• This Section Corresponds to Section 102 CrPC.  
• Any police officer may seize property alleged or suspected to have been stolen, or found in circumstances creating suspicion of commission of an offence. 
• If the seizing officer is subordinate to the Station House Officer, he must forthwith report the seizure to that officer. 
• The seizing officer must also report the seizure to the jurisdictional Magistrate without delay. 
• Where the seized property cannot be conveniently transported to court, or custody is difficult, or continued police custody is unnecessary, the officer may hand it over to any person on a bond undertaking to produce it before the court as required. 
• Where seized property is subject to speedy decay, the owner is unknown or absent, and its value is below ₹500, it may be auctioned under orders of the Superintendent of Police; Sections 503 and 504 BNSS apply to the net proceeds.

What is Section 107 of BNSS? 

Section 107 BNSS – Attachment, Forfeiture or Restoration of Property  

(Introduced as a new provision) 

• Where an investigating police officer has reason to believe that any property is derived, directly or indirectly, from criminal activity, he may — with prior approval of the SP or CP — apply to the competent Court or Magistrate for attachment of such property. 
• The Court or Magistrate, if satisfied that the property is proceeds of crime, issues a show cause notice to the concerned person, requiring him to show cause within 14 days why attachment should not be ordered. 
• Where the property is held by a third party on behalf of the noticee, a copy of the notice must also be served on that third party. 
• After considering the reply and giving a reasonable opportunity of hearing, the Court or Magistrate may pass an attachment order in respect of properties found to be proceeds of crime; if the noticee fails to appear or respond within 14 days, an ex parte order may be passed. 
• Where the Court or Magistrate is of the opinion that issuing notice would defeat the purpose of attachment, it may pass an interim ex parte attachment order; such order remains in force until a final order is passed under sub-section (6). 
• If the attached property is confirmed as proceeds of crime, the Court or Magistrate directs the District Magistrate to distribute such proceeds rateably among the persons affected by the crime. 
• The District Magistrate must effect such distribution — personally or through a subordinate — within 60 days of receiving the order. 
• If no claimants exist, no claimant is ascertainable, or a surplus remains after satisfying claimants, the proceeds stand forfeited to the Government.

Source: Rajasthan High Court

Why in News? 

A Division Bench of the Rajasthan High Court comprising Justice Sudesh Bansal and Justice Anil Kumar Upman, in the case of Hema v. Mohit Bhardwaj (2026), answered a civil reference made by a Family Court and held that Family Courts cannot exercise the power of transfer under Section 24 of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 (CPC).  

• The Court further held that such power cannot be conferred upon Family Courts through a judicial order of a Single Judge of the High Court.

What was the Background of Hema v. Mohit Bhardwaj (2026) Case? 

• A Family Court (Family Court No. 1, Bharatpur) by its order dated 06.12.2025 transferred four matrimonial cases pending before it to another Family Court within the same district. 
• The Family Court relied upon a "general view" expressed by a Single Judge of the Rajasthan High Court in S.B. Civil Transfer Application No. 143/2016 (Shantanu Agarwal v. Anubha Jain, dated 24.04.2017). 
• The receiving court (Family Court No. 2, Bharatpur), by its order dated 18.12.2025, noted that the Single Judge's 2017 view appeared to be in conflict with Section 24 CPC, creating a contradictory situation. 
• Family Court No. 2 accordingly sought the guidance of the High Court on the issue. 
• Under the administrative direction of the Acting Chief Justice, the present Civil Reference came up before the Division Bench. 

The following questions were referred for consideration: 

• Whether the general transfer power under Section 24 CPC, vested in the High Court or the District Judge, could be exercised by a Family Court to transfer pending cases from one Family Court to another within the same district? 
• If no, whether a Single Judge of the High Court could, by a judicial order, confer such power of transfer upon a Family Court? 
• Whether the order dated 24.04.2017 passed by the Single Judge in S.B. Transfer Application No. 143/2016 constitutes a binding judicial precedent or is merely an opinion, and what is its true purport?

What were the Court's Observations? 

The Court made the following key observations: 

Jurisdiction of Family Courts is Statute-Bound: 

• Family Courts are governed by their own special statute, namely the Family Courts Act, 1984. 
• Section 7 of the Family Courts Act defines and limits the jurisdiction of Family Courts. 
• Since no power of transfer is conferred upon Family Courts under this Act, they cannot exercise such power by invoking Section 24 CPC. 
• The Court held: "The Family Court while exercising judicial power and jurisdiction, cannot travel beyond the jurisdiction entrusted by virtue of Section 7 of Family Courts Act." 

Section 24 CPC Vests Power Only in District Court or High Court: 

• Section 24 CPC empowers only the High Court or the District Court to transfer, withdraw, or re-transfer suits, appeals, or other proceedings pending before them or any subordinate court. 
• One Family Court is not subordinate to another Family Court within the same city or district. 
• Therefore, the inter se transfer of cases between two Family Courts within the same district falls outside the scope of Section 24 CPC altogether. 

Single Judge Cannot Confer Jurisdiction by Judicial Order: 

• Since Family Courts have no transfer power, a Single Judge of the High Court cannot confer such power upon them through a judicial order. 
• The Single Judge's 2017 order had failed to take into consideration Section 7 of the Family Courts Act. 

2017 Single Judge Order Held Per Incuriam: 

• The view expressed by the Single Judge that Family Courts situated in the same city or place could exercise transfer power suo motu or on an application by parties was held to be per incuriam and violative of Section 24 CPC. 
• The relevant paragraphs of the 2017 order were held not to be binding judicial precedent and need not be followed by Family Courts. 

Order Treated as Non-Est: 

• The Division Bench observed that the transfer order dated 06.12.2025 passed by Family Court No. 1, Bharatpur was passed without jurisdiction and was accordingly treated as non-est. 
• The parties were granted liberty to invoke the jurisdiction of the High Court under Section 24 CPC for appropriate relief. 
• The civil reference was accordingly disposed of.

What is Section 24 of CPC? 

Section 24 CPC — General Power of Transfer and Withdrawal 

Who Can Exercise This Power: 

• Only the High Court or the District Court. 
• Courts of Additional and Assistant Judges are deemed subordinate to the District Court. 

How Power Can Be Invoked: 

• On application by any party (after notice and hearing). 
• Suo motu by the court itself (without formal application or notice). 
• At any stage of the suit, appeal, or proceeding. 

What the Court Can Do: 

• Transfer any suit, appeal, or proceeding pending before it to a competent subordinate court. 
• Withdraw any suit, appeal, or proceeding from a subordinate court and either:  
  • Try or dispose of it itself. 
  • Transfer it to another competent subordinate court. 
  • Re-transfer it to the court from which it was withdrawn. 

Post-Transfer Procedure: 

• The receiving court may either retry the matter entirely or proceed from the stage at which it was transferred or withdrawn. 
• Special directions in the transfer order, if any, must be followed. 

Key Conditions: 

• Transfer must be based on valid and justifiable grounds. 
• Judicial discretion must be exercised impartially, guided by justice and equity. 
• Frivolous or mala fide transfer applications may be dismissed. 
• Reasons for transfer must be recorded separately from the main case record. 

Special Provisions: 

• A court with no jurisdiction can also have its suit transferred under this section. 
• A court trying a suit transferred from a Court of Small Causes is deemed to be a Court of Small Causes for the purposes of that suit. 
• Proceedings include execution of a decree or order as well.