Team  SoOLEGAL

Police not Authorized to attach Immovable Property of Accused u/s 102 Cr.P.C: Supreme Court

Team SoOLEGAL 24 Sep 2019 3:25pm

Police not Authorized to attach Immovable Property of Accused u/s 102 Cr.P.C: Supreme Court


A Division Bench of the Apex Court comprising of Justice Deepak Gupta and Justice Sanjiv Khanna has held that Section 102 of the Criminal Procedure Code, 1973 which empowers police officials to seize certain property does not allow them to attach or seize "immovable" property during the course of investigation.


The judgment has been pronounced by the two-judge Bench while hearing an appeal filed by the State of Maharashtra against the decision of a Full Bench of the Bombay High Court passed in the year 2010. In the judgment, it was held by the Bombay HC that the police does not have the power to attach any property during the investigation as the same would result in misuse of power and abuse of process of law by the police officials.


Section 102 (1) of CR.P.C states that 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 commission of any offence. “


The Counsel appearing for the Appellant State of Maharashtra argued that in view of the Judgment passed by the Supreme Court in the case of State of Maharashtra vs Tapas D. Neogy” in the year 1999, the police were sufficiently allowed to exercise the power to freeze bank accounts during the investigation and thus, it is empowered to attach the immovable property also.


On the Contrary, the Supreme Court observed in the judgment passed today that the power under the said provision does not include the power to attach the immovable property of accused during an investigation.


However, it was further resolved by the Court that the police does have the authority to freeze moveable property belonging to any accused if reasonable suspicion exists during the investigation.


Both the Judges wrote the judgment separately but with acquiesce opinion.


Tagged: Supreme Court   Justice Deepak Gupta   Justice Sanjiv Khanna   Section 102   CrPC  
Did you find this write up useful? YES 0 NO 0
Send
Featured Members view all

New Members view all

×

C2RMTo Know More

Something Awesome Is In The Work

0

DAYS

0

HOURS

0

MINUTES

0

SECONDS

Sign-up and we will notify you of our launch.
We’ll also give some discount for your effort :)

* We won’t use your email for spam, just to notify you of our launch.