Presents an appeal case stemming from an impugned order dated 09.08.2023, wherein the High Court of Madras allowed the claim of the Respondents-accused for de-freezing of their bank accounts due to delayed reporting of seizure to the jurisdictional Magistrate. The central question revolves around the implication of non-reporting of seizure forthwith to the Magistrate under Section 102(3) of the Criminal Procedure Code (Cr.P.C.), specifically whether delayed reporting vitiated the seizure order.

Main Content with Headings:

1. Introduction and Question of Law:

   • Background of the appeals and the central question regarding the implication of delayed reporting of seizure to the Magistrate.

2. Prevailing Strands of Thought:

   • Two prevailing views in various High Courts: delayed reporting vitiating seizure order vs. delayed reporting constituting a mere irregularity.
   • Arguments supporting each view including statutory interpretation and precedents.

3. Legislative History - A Comparative Analysis:

   • Relevant provisions in different versions of the Criminal Procedure Code.
   • Discussion on the historical context and the amendment in 1978 to reintroduce the reporting obligation.

4. Analysis of Reporting Obligation:

   • The validity of the seizure order is not contingent upon compliance with the reporting obligation.
   • Distinction drawn with provisions like Section 105E Cr.P.C. where the order of seizure is subject to confirmation by the Court.

5. Consequence of Non-Reporting:

   • Similar reporting obligations under Section 157 Cr.P.C. and precedents regarding delay in FIR registration.
   • Delay in reporting does not vitiate the seizure order but may affect the veracity of the prosecution's case.

6. Clarification of Legal Position:

   • Overruling of precedents holding seizure orders as vitiated due to delayed reporting.
   • Emphasis on the obligation to report and the meaning of 'forthwith' under Section 102(3) Cr.P.C.

7. Case Facts and Decision:

   • The case involving the freezing and subsequent de-freezing of bank accounts.
   • Rejection of the reasoning adopted by the High Court and the decision to allow the appeals in part.

8. Conclusion and Directions:

   • Directions for the Respondents to execute a bond to deposit the withdrawn amount from the bank accounts in case of conviction.

Annexure 'A':

A list of cases where courts have held breach of reporting conditions as illegal and cases where the reporting conditions are held to be directory and not illegal, providing citation, and the respective court's decision.