Police Can Freeze Bank Accounts Invoking S.102 CrPC In Cases Under Prevention Of Corruption Act : Supreme Court

In an important ruling, the Supreme Court on Wednesday (December 10) ruled that the police/investigating agencies are empowered to freeze the bank account of a person under Section 102 Code of Criminal Procedure (now Section 106 Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita)., against whom a proceeding is initiated under the provisions of the Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988 (“PC Act”).

Dismissing a challenge raised by a public servant accused of amassing assets disproportionate to known sources of income, the Court clarified that the general seizure powers under the CrPC operate independently and are not displaced by the special attachment mechanism provided in the PC Act.

The Court held that the power of seizure under Cr.P.C. and attachment under the PC Act, are separate and distinct. Hence, both powers cannot be construed as inconsistent with the other or barring the exercise of the other. Holding so, a bench of Justice Sanjay Karol and Justice Prashant Kumar Mishra overturned the Calcutta High Court's decision, which held otherwise.

Emphasising that both statutory routes, CrPC seizure and PC Act attachment , coexist, the bench observed that investigators need not first resort to the special attachment procedure before acting under Section 102. The Court noted that prompt freezing of suspected illicit funds is often essential to prevent dissipation of assets during investigation, and the CrPC provides an effective mechanism for doing so at the preliminary stage.

“In essence, we hold that the power of seizure and attachment are separate and distinct, even if, to the naked eye it may so appear, that the effect is same/similar which is, that the property is taken into custody of, by the authority, either investigative or judicial. Consequentially, the conclusion to be drawn is that the powers under Section 18A of the PC Act and Section 102, Cr.P.C. are not mutually exclusive.”, the court observed.

The Court rejected the respondent's reliance on Ratan Babulal Lath v. State of Karnataka, (2022) 16 SCC 287, where it had been observed that the PC Act is a complete code and therefore account-freezing under the CrPC is impermissible. The judgment authored by Justice Karol held that this observation does not amount to a binding precedent under Article 141, as it was made without any detailed analysis or discussion.

Setting aside the High Court's judgment, the Supreme Court observed :

"The release of the funds so seized was rejected by the Trial Court but later accepted by the High Court on the premise that the same had been carried out on an erroneous interpretation of the law. We do not agree. We have held as above that Section 102, Cr.P.C., being distinct from the powers and procedures as detailed under Section 18-A of the PC Act, would apply to the case."

Background

The case involved allegations against police inspector Prabir Kumar Dey Sarkar for amassing assets disproportionate to his known income during 2007-2017. During the investigation, several Fixed Deposits held by his father, Anil Kumar Dey (the respondent), were frozen by the Anti-Corruption Branch under Section 102 CrPC.

The Calcutta High Court, relying on the Ratan Babulal Lath observation, had ordered the de-freezing, holding that attachment in PC Act cases must follow only the special procedure under Section 18A, prompting the State to appeal before the Supreme Court.

Against this backdrop, the Court clarified that investigative authorities (the police) are duly empowered to seize or freeze bank accounts when proceedings are initiated under the provisions of the PC Act.

With these findings, the Supreme Court upheld the freezing orders issued by the police.

Cause Title: THE STATE OF WEST BENGAL VERSUS ANIL KUMAR DEY

Citation : 2025 LiveLaw (SC) 1189

Click here to download the judgment

Appearance:

For Petitioner(s) : Mr. Shadan Farasat, Sr. Adv. Mr. Kunal Mimani, AOR Mr. Kartikey Bhatt, Adv. Ms. Shraddha Chirania, Adv. Mr. Abhishek Babbar, Adv.

For Respondent(s) : Mr. Siddharth Agarwal, Sr. Adv. Mr. Anjan Datta, Adv. Ms. Arshiya Ghose, Adv. Mr. Ram Bhadauria, Adv. Mr. Sumon Pathak, Adv. Ms. Ishita Srivastava, Adv. Mr. Robin Khokhar, AOR