Non-Reporting Of Seizure Forthwith To Magistrate U/S 102 (3) CrPC Doesn't Make Such Seizure By Police Illegal: Allahabad High Court

The Allahabad High Court has observed that non-reporting of the seizure forthwith, as provided under Section 102(3) Cr.P.C., shall not ipsofacto render such seizure illegal particularly as no period is specified and its consequences have not been provided.

About the provisions involved in the matter

It may be noted that Section 102 of CrPC provides for the power of police officers to seize certain property. As per subsection (1) of the Section 102 CrPC, any police officer, may seize any property which may be alleged or suspected to have been stolen, or which may be found under circumstances that create suspicion of the commission of any offence.

It may be further be noted that Subsection (3) of Section 102 CrPC states that every police officer acting under subsection (1) shall have to forthwith report the seizure to the Magistrate having jurisdiction.

This provision makes it clear that any police officer may seize any property even if there is suspicion that the same is involved in the commissioning of any offence. Supreme Court has already held in various judgments that such property includes a Bank account and a police officer in course of an investigation can seize a bank account.

Now, the question before the Court was whether there is any need to inform the concerned magistrate regarding the seizure of any property made under Section 102, forthwith?

Taking into account the provisions as interpreted by the Apex Court, the Bench of Justice Ashwani Kumar Mishra and Justice Rajnish Kumar held that since the consequences of non-reporting about the seized property have not been provided under Section 102 CrPC, therefore, it would be safe to hold that requirement of Section 102(3) Cr.P.C. cannot be termed as mandatory but would be directory in nature, meaning thereby, there is no requirement to inform the magistrate about the seizure forthwith.

The case in brief 

Essentially, one Amit Singh had moved to the High Court with a writ petition on account of defreezing of his Bank account and he sought permission to operate his bank account. Subsequently, by way of amendment, he also prayed for quashing the order made by a Station House Officer by means of which, his bank account was frozen.

It may be noted that his account was freezer in relation to a registered against him under Sections 420, 467, 468, 471, 120-B IPC. It was argued by his counsel that the mandatory requirements of Section 102(3) Cr.P.C. had not been followed and respondent no.2 (SHO) has not informed the concerned Magistrate regarding the seizure of the bank account, forthwith.

Opposing his plea, the AGA for the state argued that the account of the petitioner was rightly frozen in accordance with law as the consideration received out of the illegal transactions in regard to which F.I.R. had been lodged, has been deposited in the said account.

It was further contended that on an application moved by the petitioner before the concerned Magistrate, it had been informed to the Court that the Bank account had been seized and therefore, the requirement of Section 102(3) Cr.P.C. stood fulfilled.

Court's observations

The Court, in its order, ruled that sub-Section (3) of Section 102 Cr.P.C. is directory in nature and once the court has been informed of the freezing of a bank account on an application moved by the petitioner, the requirement of statute stands fulfilled.

Regarding the argument of the petitioner that he was deprived of the property (freezing of bank account) and therefore, the action was clearly in consonance with Article 300-A of the Constitution of India, the Court observed thus:

"The alleged deprivation of property (freezing of bank account) since is found to be in accordance with applicable law i.e. Code of Criminal Procedure, the action complained of is clearly in consonance with Article 300-A of the Constitution of India. Petitioner's plea of violation of Article 300-A of Constitution of India cannot be pressed to impeach the act of freezing of bank account after such action is held to be as per applicable law i.e. the Code of Criminal Procedure."

Against this backdrop, holding that merely because the freezing of the bank account was not reported forthwith and reported only on an application moved by the petitioner, it cannot be said that there is an infringement of right of property given under Article 300-A of the Constitution of India, the Court dismissed the plea.

Case title - Amit Singh v. State Of U.P. And 3 Others [CRIMINAL MISC. WRIT PETITION No. - 11201 of 2021]

Case Citation: 2022 LiveLaw (AB) 207

Click Here To Read/Download Order