Home / Current Affairs
Criminal Law
Seizure Report
« »14-May-2024
Source: Supreme Court
Why in News?
In this case the Supreme Court held that when it is not the mandate of the law that the act should be done within a fixed time, it would mean that the act must be done within a reasonable time. It was held in the context of Section 102 (3) of Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 (CrPC).
What was the Background of Shento Varghese v. Julfikar Husen & Ors. Case?
- The accused (respondents) placed an order for 47 Kerala model gold chains from the appellant, who worked as a delivery agent in a company.
- Accused was ready to provide gold bars of same value to the appellant in the consideration of gold chains.
- As per the complaint of appellant the gold bars which were handed over to him were fake.
- He registered the First Information Report (FIR), and the police started an investigation and during the investigation the police found that certain monies to the tune of Rs.19,83,036/- were deposited in the bank accounts of the accused.
- The investigating officer directed the bank to freeze the bank accounts of the accused on 09th January 2023.
- The order of freezing was reported to the Magistrate on 27th January 2023.
- The accused approached the jurisdictional magistrate to take custody of the seized bank accounts.
- After that they approached the High court by filing a petition under Section 482 of CrPC sought for de-freezing of the bank accounts.
- The High Court passed an order for de-freezing the bank accounts and therefore set at naught the seizure order on the sole ground that the order of seizure was not forthwith reported to the Magistrate.
- The appeal was filed before the Supreme Court (SC) against the order of High Court.
What were the Court’s Observations?
- The SC held that the line of precedents which have taken the position that ‘seizure orders’ are vitiated for delay in compliance with the reporting obligation are declared to be manifestly erroneous and are accordingly, overruled.
- The court observed that the obligation to report the seizure to the Magistrate is neither a jurisdictional pre-requisite for exercising the power to seize nor is the exercise of such power made subject to compliance with the reporting obligation.
- Since there is an obligation cast on the officer to report the seizure ‘forthwith', it necessary to understand the meaning of ‘forthwith’ and SC explained the meaning of ‘forthwith’. The expression ‘forthwith’ means ‘as soon as may be’, ‘with reasonable speed and expedition’, ‘with a sense of urgency’, and ‘without any unnecessary delay’.
- In that sense, the interpretation of the word ‘forthwith’ would depend upon the terrain in which it travels and would take its color depending upon the prevailing circumstances which can be variable.
- Therefore, in deciding whether the police officer has properly discharged his obligation under Section 102(3) CrPC, the Magistrate would have to, firstly, examine whether the seizure was reported forthwith.
- The SC reiterated that the act of seizure would not get vitiated by virtue of such delay.
What is Legal History of Provision Related to Power of Police Officer to Seize Certain Property?
| Criminal Procedure Codes | Section | Provision in Detail |
| 1882 | Section 523 | The seizure by any Police-officer of property taken under Section 51, or alleged or suspected to have been stolen, or found under circumstances which create suspicion of the commission of any offence, shall be forthwith reported to a magistrate, who shall make such order as he thinks fit respecting the delivery of such property to the person entitled to the possession thereof, or, if such person cannot be ascertained, respecting the custody and production of such property. |
| 1898 | Section 550 | Any police office may seize any property which may be alleged or suspected to have been stolen, or which may be found under circumstances which create suspicion of the commission of any offence. Such police-officer, if subordinate to the office in charge of a police station, shall forthwith report the seizure to that officer. |
| 1973 | Section 102 |
(1) Any police officer may seize any property which may be alleged or suspected to have been stolen, or which may be found under circumstances which create suspicion of the commission of any offence. (2) Such police officer, if subordinate to the officer in charge of a police station, shall forthwith report the seizure to that officer. (3) Every police officer acting under sub-section (1) shall forthwith report the seizure to the Magistrate having jurisdiction and where the property seized is such that it cannot be conveniently transported to the Court, or where there is difficulty in securing proper accommodation for the custody of such property, or where the continued retention of the property in police custody may not be considered necessary for the purpose of investigation,] he may give custody thereof to any person on his executing a bond undertaking to produce the property before the Court as and when required and to give effect to the further orders of the Court as to the disposal of the same: Provided that where the property seized under sub-section (1) is subject to speedy and natural decay and if the person entitled to the possession of such property is unknown or absent and the value of such property is less than five hundred rupees, it may forthwith be sold by auction under the orders of the Superintendent of Police and the provisions of Sections 457 and 458 shall, as nearly as may be practicable, apply to the net proceeds of such sale. |
| 2023 (Bharatiya Nyaya Suraksha Sanhita) | Section 106 |
(1) Any police officer may seize any property which may be alleged or suspected to have been stolen, or which may be found under circumstances which create suspicion of the commission of any offence. (2) Such police officer, if subordinate to the officer in charge of a police station, shall forthwith report the seizure to that officer. (3) Every police officer acting under sub-section (1) shall forthwith report the seizure to the Magistrate having jurisdiction and where the property seized is such that it cannot be conveniently transported to the Court, or where there is difficulty in securing proper accommodation for the custody of such property, or where the continued retention of the property in police custody may not be considered necessary for the purpose of investigation, he may give custody thereof to any person on his executing a bond undertaking to produce the property before the Court as and when required and to give effect to the further orders of the Court as to the disposal of the same: Provided that where the property seized under sub-section (1) is subject to speedy and natural decay and if the person entitled to the possession of such property is unknown or absent and the value of such property is less than five hundred rupees, it may forthwith be sold by auction under the orders of the Superintendent of Police and the provisions of Sections 505 and 506 shall, as nearly as may be practicable, apply to the net proceeds of such sale. |
What are the Landmark Judgments related to Section 102 of CrPC?
- Nevada Properties Private Limited Through its Directors v. State of Maharashtra and Another (2019):
- A three Judges bench of the SC held that the term ‘any property’ under Section 102 of CrPC would not include 'immovable property'.
- The SC held that the power of a police officer under Section 102 of the Code to seize any property, which may be found under circumstances that create suspicion of the commission of any offence, would not include the power to attach, seize and seal an immovable property.
- Ratan Babulal Lath v. The State of Karnataka (2021):
- In this case the SC observed that a bank account of a person who is accused under the Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988 cannot be attached by invoking Section 102 of CrPC.
- The SC stated that it is not possible to sustain the freezing of the bank account of the appellant taking recourse to Section 102 CrPC as the Prevention of Corruption Act is a Code by itself.