S. 102(3) Cr.P.C. | Police Seizure Wouldn't Get Vitiated Altogether Due To Delayed Reporting To Magistrate: Supreme Court

The Supreme Court on Monday (May 13) observed that the delay in reporting the seizure report by the police to the magistrate wouldn't vitiate the act of seizure by police under Section 102(3) of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973.

Reversing that part of the High Court's findings which had declared the seizure report to be vitiated because the report wasn't sent forthwith to the magistrate, the bench comprising Justices P.S. Narasimha and Aravind Kumar observed that although the law requires the police to send the seizure report to the magistrate 'forthwith' (came to be interpreted as 'as soon as possible') but the delay in sending the report to the magistrate wouldn't vitiate the act of seizure by the police altogether.

“Therefore, in deciding whether the police officer has properly discharged his obligation under Section 102(3) Cr.P.C., the Magistrate would have to, firstly, examine whether the seizure was reported forthwith. In doing so, it ought to have regard to the interpretation of the expression, 'forthwith' as discussed above. If it finds that the report was not sent forthwith, then it must examine whether there is any explanation offered in support of the delay. If the Magistrate finds that the delay has been properly explained, it would leave the matter at that. However, if it finds that there is no reasonable explanation for the delay or that the official has acted with deliberate disregard/ wanton negligence, then it may direct for appropriate departmental action to be initiated against such erring official. We once again reiterate that the act of seizure would not get vitiated by virtue of such delay, as discussed in detail herein above.”, the Judgment authored by Justice Aravind Kumar said.

In brief, Section 102(3) of Cr.P.C. mandates the police officer having jurisdiction to do seizure linked with the commission of the crime to 'forthwith' report the seizure to the Magistrate having jurisdiction.

In the present case, on 09.01.2023 the bank account of the accused was frozen by the bank upon the order of the police. The seizure report of freezing the bank account was sent to the magistrate as per Section 102(3) on 27.01.2023.

After an application for de-freezing the bank account was turned down by the magistrate, the accused moved the High Court praying for the de-freezing of his bank account on the ground that the order of seizure (freezing of his bank account) was not forthwith reported to the Magistrate.

Against the High Court's decision allowing the accused plea, the complainant/appellant moved to the Supreme Court.

The moot question that appeared before the Supreme Court was whether the delayed reporting of the seizure to the Magistrate would vitiate the seizure order altogether.

Answering negatively, the Court emphasized the legislative intent of the word 'forthwith' to mean it 'as soon as possible'.

“From the discussion made above, it would emerge that the expression 'forthwith' means 'as soon as may be', 'with reasonable speed and expedition', 'with a sense of urgency', and 'without any unnecessary delay'. In other words, it would mean as soon as possible, judged in the context of the object sought to be achieved or accomplished.”, the court observed.

According to the Court, the word 'forthwith' should be reasonably construed i.e., a variable required to meet the nature of the act or thing to be performed and the prevailing circumstances of the case.

“When it is not the mandate of the law that the act should be done within a fixed time, it would mean that the act must be done within a reasonable time. It all depends upon the circumstances that may unfold in a given case and there cannot be a straight-jacket formula prescribed in this regard. In that sense, the interpretation of the word 'forthwith' would depend upon the terrain in which it travels and would take its colour depending upon the prevailing circumstances which can be variable.”, the court noted.

Applying the aforesaid observation to the present case, the court noted that the High Court committed an error in vitiating the act of seizure (freezing the bank account) altogether by the police on the grounds of delay in reporting the seizure report to the magistrate.

Since no time limit is prescribed under Section 102(3) of Cr.P.C. within which the police must report the seizure to the magistrate, therefore the report of seizure must be sent to the magistrate within a reasonable time depending upon the facts and circumstances of each case.

Case Title: SHENTO VARGHESE VERSUS JULFIKAR HUSEN & ORS.

Citation : 2024 LiveLaw (SC) 371

Click here to read/download the judgment