Document Fragment View

Matching Fragments

"12. Having gone through Tapas Neogy [(1999) 7 SCC 685], we are inclined to hold that it is possible to urge that in Tapas Neogy, the Supreme Court was primarily considering whether the bank account of the accused could be property within the the Section 102 (1) of the Code and not whether under Section 102 of the Code, immovable property could be seized. That question has been decided by this Court in Kishore Shankar Signapurkar vs. State of Maharashtra & Ors., 1997 Vol. IV LJ 793. It is held cri.w.p.3198-2009 & Other Petitions.doc therein that under Section 102, immovable property cannot be seized. Unfortunately, attention of the Division Bench of this court was not drawn to this judgment when it decided M/s.Bombay Science & Research (2008 All. M.R. (Cri.) 2133). Reliance placed by the Division Bench in M/s. Bombay Science & Research on Tapas Neogy does not appear to us to be apt because in that case, the Supreme Court was not considering whether immoveable property can be seized under Section 102 of the Code. There is, therefore, an apparent conflict between the view expressed in Kishore Signapurkar and M/s.Bombay Science & Research. In our opinion, therefore, the question whether under Section 102 of the Code, immoveable property can be seized needs to be referred to a larger bench as there is conflict between two coordinate benches of this Court."

5. In the case of M/s. Bombay Science Research Education Institute (supra) another Division Bench of this Court following the law laid down by the Supreme Court in Tapas Neogy's case held that all properties whether movable or immovable can be seized by the police under Section 102 of the Code as there is nothing in the provision to show that the property would include only movable and not immovable property. It is true that there is no reference in this judgment in the case of M/s.Bombay Science Research Education Institute (supra), to the earlier judgment in the case of Kishore Signapukar (Supra) but it is beyond any doubt that the findings in both the decisions of this Court are in conflict and the view taken in the later judgment of this Court is solely based on the subsequent decision of the Supreme Court in the case of Tapas Neogy's case (supra). In paras. 10 and 11 of the judgment cri.w.p.3198-2009 & Other Petitions.doc in M/s.Bombay Science and Research Education Institute the Division Bench stated as under:-

Section 451 of the Code provides for an order which a Court can pass pending trial for custody of the property, whereas Section 452 and 456 of the Code speaks about disposal of the property at the completion of the trial. Section 457 of the Code is the only Section which enables the Court to preserve and protect the property till the conclusion of the trial and it can be directly related to Section 102 of the Code. If Section 102 of the Code is given a narrow meaning as suggested by the petitioner it would curtail the investigating officer's legitimate power and that would adversely affect the investigation of serious crimes under various penal provisions general as well as special. The investigating officer may become totally helpless where he would come to the prima facie cri.w.p.3198-2009 & Other Petitions.doc conclusion that the property found was under the circumstances which create suspicion on the commission of any offence. The investigation of serious offences under the N.D.P.S. Act, Maharashtra Control of Organised Crime Act, Money Lending Act, the Maharashtra Protection of Interest of Depositors (In Financial Establishment) Act, 1999 and the Prevention of Money Laundering Act, 2002 would be adversely affected. It was further urged that the view taken by the Division Bench in M/s. Bombay Science & Research Education Institute (supra) is in keeping with the letter and spirit of the interpretation of Section 102 as amplified by the Supreme Court in the case of Tapas D. Neogy (supra) and that the view taken in the case of Kishore Shankar Signapurkar (supra) is no more a good law. The Criminal Law (amendment) Ordinance 1944 could not detain, as is clear from the taken by the Supreme Court in Tapas D. Neogy's case (supra), to take a restricted view that a property acquired from the proceeds of crime cannot be seized under Section 102 of the Code, urged the learned Counsel for the respondents.

35. Confronted with these conflicting Judgments of two Division Benches, the Division Bench has made this reference. The reasons which prevailed upon the Division Bench, to make this reference are as under:-

"12.
Having gone through Tapas Neogy, we are inclined to hold that it is possible to urge that in Tapas Neogy, the Supreme Court was primarily considering whether the bank account of the accused could be property within the meaning of Section 102(1) of the Code and not whether under Section 102 of the Code, immovable property could be seized. That question has been decided by this court in Kishore Signapurkar. It is held therein that under Section 102, immovable property cannot be seized. Unfortunately, attention of the Division Bench of this court was not drawn to this judgment when it decided M/s.Bombay Science & Research. Reliance placed by the Division Bench in M/s. Bombay Science & Research on Tapas Neogy does not appear to us to be apt because in that case, the Supreme Court was not considering whether immovable property can be seized under Section 102 of cri.w.p.3198-2009 & Other Petitions.doc the Code."