Case Note & Summary
The Supreme Court in this judgment resolved a long-standing conflict of opinion in the Bombay High Court regarding the interpretation of Section 102 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 (CrPC). The core issue was whether the expression 'any property' in Section 102(1) includes immovable property, thereby empowering a police officer investigating a criminal case to seize immovable property. The lead appeal arose from a judgment of the Bombay High Court dated November 29, 2010, where the majority held that 'any property' does not include immovable property, while the minority took a contrary view. The Supreme Court, after examining the scheme of the CrPC, particularly Chapter VII dealing with 'Process to Compel the Production of Things', and the language of Section 102, held that the power of seizure under Section 102 is limited to movable property. The court reasoned that the word 'seize' in its ordinary sense implies taking possession of something that can be physically moved, and immovable property cannot be taken into custody in the same manner. The court also noted that the CrPC provides separate mechanisms for attachment of immovable property under Sections 83 and 84, which are applicable in cases where a person is absconding. The court distinguished its earlier decision in State of Maharashtra v. Tapas D. Neogy, which had held that bank accounts are 'property' under Section 102 and can be seized or prohibited. The court clarified that Tapas D. Neogy dealt with bank accounts, which are movable property, and did not decide the question of immovable property. The court also observed that other statutes like the Prevention of Money Laundering Act, 2002 and the Criminal Law (Amendment) Ordinance, 1944 provide for attachment of immovable property in certain cases. The court concluded that the police do not have the power to seize immovable property under Section 102 CrPC, and the majority view of the Bombay High Court was correct. The appeals were accordingly disposed of, with the court setting aside any orders of seizure of immovable property passed under Section 102 CrPC.
Headnote
A) Criminal Procedure - Seizure of Property - Section 102 CrPC - Interpretation of 'any property' - The Supreme Court held that the expression 'any property' in Section 102(1) of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 does not include immovable property. The power of seizure under Section 102 is limited to movable property, as the provision is part of Chapter VII dealing with 'Process to Compel the Production of Things' and the scheme of the Code provides separate mechanisms for attachment of immovable property under Sections 83 and 84. The court overruled the minority view of the Bombay High Court and affirmed the majority view that police cannot seize immovable property during investigation. (Paras 1-39) B) Criminal Procedure - Bank Accounts - Seizure under Section 102 CrPC - The court distinguished its earlier decision in State of Maharashtra v. Tapas D. Neogy, which held that bank accounts are 'property' under Section 102 and can be seized or prohibited. The court clarified that Tapas D. Neogy dealt with bank accounts, which are movable property, and did not decide the question of immovable property. The present judgment does not overrule Tapas D. Neogy but confines it to movable property. (Paras 6-8) C) Criminal Procedure - Attachment of Immovable Property - Alternative Provisions - The court noted that immovable property can be attached under Section 83 of the CrPC in cases where a proclamation has been issued against a person absconding, or under the Prevention of Money Laundering Act, 2002, or under the Criminal Law (Amendment) Ordinance, 1944. The absence of a provision for seizure of immovable property under Section 102 does not leave a gap in the law. (Paras 30-35)
Issue of Consideration
Whether the expression 'any property' in Section 102(1) of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 includes immovable property, thereby empowering a police officer investigating a criminal case to seize immovable property.
Final Decision
The Supreme Court held that the expression 'any property' in Section 102(1) of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 does not include immovable property. Consequently, a police officer investigating a criminal case cannot seize immovable property under Section 102 CrPC. The appeals were disposed of, and any orders of seizure of immovable property under Section 102 CrPC were set aside.
Law Points
- Section 102 CrPC does not empower police to seize immovable property
- 'any property' in Section 102(1) CrPC means movable property only
- seizure of bank accounts is permissible as they are movable property
- immovable property can be dealt with under other provisions like Section 83 CrPC
