Section 102 (3) CrPC | Non-Reporting Of Bank Account Seizure Forthwith To Magistrate Doesn't Make Seizure Illegal: Allahabad HC
The Allahabad High Court has observed that non-reporting of the seizure of a bank account (seized by police under Section 102 CrPC) forthwith to the magistrate concerned doesn't render such seizure ipsofact illegal.The Bench of Justice Ramesh Sinha and Justice Saroj Yadav observed thus as it relied upon and agreed with Allahabad High Court's order in the case of Amit Singh v. State Of U.P. And...
The Allahabad High Court has observed that non-reporting of the seizure of a bank account (seized by police under Section 102 CrPC) forthwith to the magistrate concerned doesn't render such seizure ipsofact illegal.
The Bench of Justice Ramesh Sinha and Justice Saroj Yadav observed thus as it relied upon and agreed with Allahabad High Court's order in the case of Amit Singh v. State Of U.P. And 3 Others 2022 LiveLaw (AB) 207.
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 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 (including the bank account) made under Section 102, forthwith?
Court's observations
Agreeing with the High Court's ruling in the case of Amit Singh v. State Of U.P. And 3 Others 2022 LiveLaw (AB) 207, the Bench of Justice Sinha and Justice Yadav observed that non-reporting of the seizure forthwith, as provided under Section 102 (3) Cr.P.C., shall not ipso facto render the seizure illegal particularly as no period is specified and it's consequences have not been provided
About the case in brief
The Court was dealing with a writ petition filed by M/S SJS Gold Pvt. Ltd. Thru. Director Sunil Jaihind Salunkhe And Another, wherein it was contended that pursuant to an FIR, the debit of their bank account was frozen on the instructions of the Investigating Officer by the Axis Bank.
Feeling aggrieved by the debit freeze of the petitioners' account on the instructions of the Investigating Officer, the instant writ petition had been filed by the petitioners.
The contention of the Counsel for the petitioners was that as per Section 102 (3) of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973, seizure of bank account shall have to forthwith be reported to the Magistrate concerned having jurisdiction and the same is mandatory in nature as prescribed under Section 102 (3) Cr.P.C.
Against this backdrop, it was contended that in the instant case, the Investigating Officer had not reported the seizure/debit freezing of the petitioners' account to the Magistrate concerned having jurisdiction, hence the impugned action to freeze the debit account of the petitioners was contrary to the provisions of Section 102 (3) Cr.P.C.
However, the Court did not agree with their submissions and dismissed their plea.
Case title - M/S SJS Gold Pvt. Ltd. Thru. Director Sunil Jaihind Salunkhe And Another v. State Of Up Thru. Addl. Chief Secy. Home Deptt. Civil Secrtt. Lko And Others
Citation: 2022 LiveLaw (AB) 278
Click Here To Read/Download Order