Allow Cookies!
By using our website, you agree to the use of cookies
Hon’ble Chief Justice Ranjan Gogoi, Hon’ble Justice Sanjiv Khanna and Hon’ble Justice Deepak Gupta of Supreme Court on 24/09/2019 in the matter of Nevada Properties Private Limited Through Its Directors v. State of Maharashtra and Another passed a Judgement that police does not have the power to attach immovable property during investigation under Section 102 of the Code of Criminal Procedure. However, police do have the authority to freeze the moveable properties of the accused.
Section 102(1) CrPC says that “Any police officers may seize any property which may be alleged or suspected to have been stolen, or which may be found under circumstance which creates suspicion of the commission of any offence.”
“However, it is a well-settled principle of statutory interpretation that when construing the words of a statute, they must be read in a manner in which they fit into the section and in the context of the purpose sought to be achieved by that particular provision of law.” Sub-section 1 of Section 102 empowers a police officer to seize any property which may be alleged or suspected to have been stolen. “Theft can take place only of movable property and not of immovable property. The word ‘seized’ has been used in the sense of taking actual physical custody of the property. Sub-section 3 of Section 102 provides that where it is difficult to conveniently transport the property to the court or there is difficulty in securing proper accommodation for the custody of the property, then the property can be given to any person on his execution a bond. This per se indicates that the property must be capable of production in court and also be capable of being kept inside some accommodation. This obviously cannot be dome with immovable property.”
The Appeal was against the judgement dated 29th November 2010 of Bombay High Court in the case of Sudhir Vasant Karnataki v. State of Maharashtra[1].
[1] 2011 (1) Bom C.R (Cri.) 326
86540
103860
630
114
59824