Section 102 CrPC- Expression 'Any Property' Does Not Include 'Immovable Property', Holds SC [Read Judgment]

The Supreme Court has held that the expression 'any property' appearing in Section 102 of the Code of Criminal Procedure would not include 'immovable property'. The bench comprising Chief Justice Ranjan Gogoi, Justice Deepak Gupta and Justice Sanjiv Khanna observed thus while holding that a power of a police officer under Section 102 of the Criminal Procedure 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.Section 102 CrPC: Power of police officer to seize certain propertyThis provision deals with the Power of police officer to seize certain property. It provides that "Any police officer may seize any property which may be alleged or suspected to have been stolen, or which may be found under circumstances which create suspicion of the commission of any offence." Bombay HC Judgment and Reference to Three judge BenchThe majority judgment of the Full Bench of Bombay High Court had held that the expression 'any property' used in sub-section (1) of Section 102 of the Code of Criminal Procedure does not include immovable property and, consequently, a police officer investigating a criminal case cannot take custody of and seize any immovable property. While considering appeals filed against this judgment [Nevada Properties Private Limited Vs. State Of Maharashtra], the Apex Court bench had referred the case to larger bench observing that the issues have far reaching and serious consequences.Tapas D. Neogy Judgment did not deal with this issueThe minority judgment of the High Court in this case had relied on the Supreme Court judgment in State of Maharashtra v. Tapas D. Neogy to hold that the provision would include 'immovable property' also. The Apex Court, while answering the reference, noted that in Tapas D. Neogy, the issue considered by the bench was whether a bank account of an accused or any relation of the accused was 'property' within the meaning of Section 102 of the Code and if so, whether the Investigating Officer has the power to seize the bank account or issue a prohibitory order restraining operation of the bank account. In the said judgment, it was held that the bank account of the accused or any of his relations is "property" within the meaning of Section 102 of the Criminal Procedure Code and a police officer in course of investigation can seize or prohibit the operation of the said account if such assets have direct links with the commission of the offence for which the police officer is investigating into. Money is not an immovable property Explaining the purport of the said judgment, the bench observed: Money, as per clause (7) of Section 2 of the Sales of Goods Act, 1930, is neither goods nor movable property, albeit Section 22 of the IPC defines the term 'movable property' to include corporeal property of every description, except land and things attached to the earth or permanently fastened to anything which is attached to the earth. The expression 'movable property' has not been specifically defined in the Code. In terms of Section 2(y) of the Code, words and meanings defined in the IPC would equally be applicable to the Code. Money, therefore, would be property for the purposes of the Code. Money is not an immovable property.Elaborately referring to the discussion made in Tapas D. Neogy (supra), the bench concluded that it did not decide the issue in question; whether or not an immovable property will fall within the expression 'any property' in Section 102 of the Code.Immovable Property Cannot Be SeizedExplaining the Scope of Section 102 CrPC, the bench observed: Section 102 postulates seizure of the property. Immovable property cannot, in its strict sense, be seized, though documents of title, etc. relating to immovable property can be seized, taken into custody and produced. Immovable property can be attached and also locked/sealed. It could be argued that the word 'seize' would include such action of attachment and sealing. Seizure of immovable property in this sense and manner would in law require dispossession of the person in occupation/possession of the immovable property, unless there are no claimants, which would be rare. Language of Section 102 of the Code does not support the interpretation that the police officer has the power to dispossess a person in occupation and take possession of an immovable property in order to seize it. In the absence of the Legislature conferring this express or implied power under Section 102 of the Code to the police officer, we would hesitate and not hold that this power should be inferred and is implicit in the power to effect seizure. Equally important, for the purpose of interpretation is the scope and object of Section 102 of the Code, which is to help and assist investigation and to enable the police officer to collect and collate evidence to be produced to prove the charge complained...

Section 102 CrPC- Expression 'Any Property' Does Not Include 'Immovable Property', Holds SC [Read Judgment]

Ashok Kini

"If a police officer is given the power to seize immovable property it may lead to an absolutely chaotic situation."

Tags