INTRODUCTION:-

It has been noticed on a number of events that the frequent man
has been subjected to arbitrary investigation procedures by the
police authorities. Under the guise of suspicion, immovable
property is hooked up and seized by the police authorities with out
conducting any preliminary investigation. In the previous few years the
Apex Court and varied different High Courts, via a number of
choices, mentioned this situation. The Apex Court in Nevada
Properties Private Limited v. The State of Maharashtra &
Anr, has given an in depth overview of Section 102 of the Code
of Criminal Procedure, 1974. In the current case, the most important
query of legislation earlier than the Court was whether or not immovable property
could possibly be seized below mere suspicion of the commissioning of an
offence as supplied below S. 102 of the Code?

FACTS PERTAINING TO THE PRESENT CASE:-

The enchantment arose out of a judgment of the Bombay High Court
whereby the bulk view has held that the expression
‘any property’ utilized in S.102 (1) of the Code
of Criminal Procedure doesn’t embrace immovable property and,
consequently, a police officer investigating a prison case can not
take custody of and seize any immovable property which can be discovered
below circumstances which create suspicion of the commissioning of
any offence.

JUDGEMENT AND ANALYSIS:-

In the current case the Apex Court has given out an in depth
clarification concerning the ambiguity that has all the time arisen whereas
deciphering the time period ‘any property’ within the context of
S.102 of the Code.

The Apex Court has clearly laid down the legislation that S.102
postulates seizure of any property; nevertheless, immovable property
can not, in its strict sense, be seized, although paperwork of title,
and so forth. referring to immovable property could be seized, taken into
custody and produced. Immovable property could be hooked up and in addition
locked/sealed. It could possibly be argued that the phrase ‘seize’
would come with such actions of attachment and sealing, however seizure
of immovable property on this sense and method would require
dispossession of the particular person in occupation/possession of the
immovable property most often. The language of S.102 of the Code
doesn’t help the interpretation that the police officer has the
energy to dispossess an individual in occupation and take possession of
an immovable property with the intention to seize it. The scope and object of
S.102 is to assist and help the investigation and to allow the
police officer to gather and collate proof to be produced, to
show the cost complained of and to be used within the preparation of
the cost sheet. The part is part of the provisions
regarding investigations undertaken by cops. After the
cost sheet has been filed, the prosecution leads and produces
proof to safe the conviction. Section 102 just isn’t, per
se, an enabling provision by which the police officer acts to
seize the property to do justice and handy over the property to
the particular person whom the police officer feels is the rightful and true
proprietor. The courtroom remphasised that disputes referring to title,
possession, and so forth., of immovable property had been civil disputes ought to
be determined and adjudicated in Civil Courts. Any try and convert
civil disputes into prison instances to place stress on the opposite
aspect can be unacceptable.¹

The Court additionally mentioned State of
Maharashtra v. Tapas D. Neogy²  the place financial institution
accounts had been included below the purview of S. 102 of the Code and
that they could possibly be frozen below the course of the police
authorities if there was a suspicion of the commissioning of an
offence in relation to a checking account. 

Further emphasis has been laid out on Chapter XXXIV of the Code
whereby provisions have been laid down for disposal of property and
which allows courts to cross orders referring to each movable and
immovable property, slightly than drastic measures below S.102.

CONCLUSION: –

The Apex Court opined that it was not possible to offer such
judicial powers within the fingers of the police authorities, as seizure
and attachment of a property is a topic of trial and proof.
The Court acknowledged that cops had been investigators and never
choice makers or adjudicators. It was noticed that the time period
‘any property’ below Section 102 of the code wouldn’t
embrace the facility to connect, seize and seal an immovable
property.

Footnotes

1 Binod Kumar v. State
of Bihar, (2014) 10 SCC 663.

2 (1999) 7 SCC 685.

The content material of this text is meant to supply a basic
information to the subject material. Specialist recommendation needs to be sought
about your particular circumstances.

POPULAR ARTICLES ON: Criminal Law from India