Share :
SUPREME COURT UPHOLDS TIMELY REPORTING IN POLICE SEIZURES
Section 102(3) of Code of Criminal Procedure (Cr.P.C.) mandates the police officer having jurisdiction to do seizure linked with the commission of the crime to ‘forthwith’ report the seizure to the Magistrate having jurisdiction.
CASE SUMMARY
In Shento Varghese Versus Julfikar Husen & Ors., on 09.01.2023 the bank account of the accused was frozen by the bank upon the order of the police. The seizure report of freezing the bank account was sent to the magistrate as per Section 102(3) on 27.01.2023.
After an application for de-freezing the bank account was turned down by the magistrate, the accused moved the High Court praying for the de-freezing of his bank account on the ground that the order of seizure (freezing of his bank account) was not forthwith reported to the Magistrate.
Against the High Court’s decision allowing the accused plea, the complainant/appellant moved to the Supreme Court.
KEY ISSUE
- The main issue of the case revolves around whether the delay in reporting of the seizure to the Magistrate damages the order of seizure entirely?
- Whether the implication of non-reporting of the seizure forthwith to the Jurisdictional Magistrate as mentioned under Section 102(3) of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 mandatory or directory?
LEGAL PROVISIONS
Section 102(1) of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 prescribes the Power of Police Officer to seize certain property.
Section 102(3) of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 prescribes that 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.
CONTENTIONS OF THE APPELLANTS
The Appellants, through their counsel, contented that the delay in reporting of the seizure to the Magistrate should not tarnish the seizure order unless serious prejudice is demonstrated by the Respondents. In the said case contented that the compliance with the reporting obligation is not a jurisdictional prerequisite for exercising the power to seize under Section 102(1) of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973.
CONTENTIONS OF THE RESPONDENTS
The Respondents, through their counsel, in the said case contented that the delay in reporting the Magistrate evince the seizure order as illegal and should lead to its nullification. In the said case contented that the significance of instantly informing the Magistrate to ensure proper custody and disposal of the seized property and the failure to comply with the reporting erodes the integrity of the seizure process and violates the procedural safeguards.
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.
SUPREME COURT RUILING
The Supreme Court noted that the High Court committed an error in invalidating the act of seizure (freezing the bank account) altogether by the police on the grounds of delay in reporting the seizure report to the magistrate.
Since no time limit is prescribed under Section 102(3) of CrPc. within which the police must report the seizure to the magistrate, therefore the report of seizure must be sent to the magistrate within a reasonable time depending upon the facts and circumstances of each case.
OBSERVATION
The court, in this case, held that the compliance with reporting obligations is not a jurisdictional prerequisite for exercising the power to seize under Section 102(1) of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 and that the validity of seizure orders can be questioned on the jurisdictional or merit-based grounds but not solely on the basis of delay in the reporting. The court, concerning the interpretation “forthwith” under Section 102(3) of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973, held that it should be understood as “with all reasonable quickness”.
For more information or queries, please email us at
[email protected]
