The decision is quite significant as it curtails the power of the police force while investigating a crime
The police will not have power to seize or attach any immovable property as part of its investigation into any offence, ruled the Supreme Court on Tuesday. The decision is quite significant as it curtails the power of the police force while investigating a crime.
The question was brought to the Supreme Court in an appeal by the Maharashtra government following a judgment by the Bombay High Court on November 29, 2010. The full bench of the HC was called to answer whether the power of the police to seize any 'property' under Section 102 of the Code of Criminal Procedure (CrPC) includes immovable property as well. The HC, by majority, said no. This decision pinched the state government and it sent forth an appeal to the apex court. In November 2014, a two-judge bench of the apex court clubbed several similar petitions and referred it to a three-judge bench.
Pronouncing the decision on Tuesday, the bench of Chief Justice Ranjan Gogoi, Justices Deepak Gupta and Sanjiv Khanna said, "The reference is answered by holding that the power of a police officer under Section 102 of the Code to seize any property, which may be found under circumstances that create suspicion of the commission of any offence, would not include the power to attach, seize and seal an immovable property."
THREE-JUDGE BENCH EXPLAINS RATIONALE
|
- Question was brought to SC by the Maha govt following a judgment by the Bombay HC in 2010
- Court delved into intent of legislature behind enacting Section 102 of the CrPC, examined consequences
- Court could not envisage attachment or seizure by police as the code clearly earmarks the job to courts
- However, the court held that money or bank accounts will not constitute immovable property
|
The court delved into the intent of the legislature behind enacting this provision in the CrPC and examined the consequences of allowing police to attach immovable property such as buildings, land, etc. The judges held, "Section 102 postulates seizure of the property. Immovable property cannot, in the strict sense, be seized, though document of title, etc. relating to the said property can be seized, taken into custody and produced."
Justice Gupta, who penned a separate, but concurring decision, said that Section 102 could not envisage attachment or seizure by police as the Code clearly earmarks this job to the courts and not the police. Further, he examined the consequences of assuming that seizure of "any property" will include immovable property also. In that case, in a dispute between landlord and tenant, the rented property will be seized. "This would make a mockery of rent laws," said the judge.
Also, in the event a person forged a will, the property so willed will be seized and attached by police. This was never intended by the legislature, the court said, adding, "If power is given to a police officer to seize immovable property it may lead to an absolutely chaotic situation".
){kind=small}
){kind=small}
){kind=small}
){kind=small}
){kind=small}
){kind=small}
){kind=small}
){kind=small}
){kind=small}
){kind=small}
){kind=small}
){kind=small}
){kind=small}
){kind=small}
){kind=small}
){kind=small}
){kind=small}
 "Supreme Court")
){kind=small}
){kind=small}
){kind=small}
){kind=small}
){kind=small}
)
){kind=small}
){kind=small}
)
)
)
)
)
){kind=small}
){kind=small}
){kind=small}
){kind=small}
){kind=small}