Search Results Page

Search Results

1 - 10 of 164 (2.10 seconds)
Documents citing Madhu.K vs The Sub Inspector Of Police on 26 August, 2020

Sam Basheer Thambi vs Union Of India on 7 August, 2024

7. Thus it is no longer open for any person to contend that the delay in complying with Section 102 Cr.P.C would vitiate the seizure as such. This gives rise to an ancillary question, as to the impact of non-compliance of Section 102(3), by the failure on the part of the police officer concerned to report the seizure of bank account to the jurisdictional Magistrate. In my opinion, this question has to be addressed in the light of Article 300A of the Constitution of India, which stipulates that no person shall be deprived of his property except by authority of law. The authority 2024:KER:63195 WP(C) NO. 24781 OF 2024 -10- of law in the cases under consideration is conferred by Section 102 Cr.P.C. Therefore, abject violation of the procedure prescribed therein will definitely affect the validity of the seizure. While on the subject, it will be profitable to refer the well considered judgment rendered by a learned single Judge of this Court in Madhu K v. Sub Inspector of Police and others [2020 (5) KLT 483]. Therein, the practice of certain police officers of directing freezing of accounts without reporting to the Magistrate concerned was deprecated. As rightly observed in the judgment, the police officer acting under Section 102 Cr.P.C cannot be permitted to arrogate to himself an unregulated and unbridled power to freeze the bank account of a person on mere surmise and conjuncture, since such unguarded power may bring about drastic consequences affecting the right to privacy as well as reputation of the account holder. The other relevant portion of that judgment reads as under:-
Kerala High Court Cites 11 - Cited by 0 - V G Arun - Full Document

Muhammed Rashid .P .P vs Federal Bank on 2 August, 2024

7. Thus it is no longer open for any person to contend that the delay in complying with Section 102 Cr.P.C would vitiate the seizure as such. This gives rise to an ancillary question, as to the impact of non-compliance of Section 102(3), by the failure on the part of the police officer concerned to report the seizure of bank account to the jurisdictional Magistrate. In my opinion, this question has to be addressed in the light of Article 300A of the Constitution of India, which stipulates that no person shall be deprived of his property except by authority of law. The authority 2024:KER:63181 WP(C) NO. 25145 OF 2024 -9- of law in the cases under consideration is conferred by Section 102 Cr.P.C. Therefore, abject violation of the procedure prescribed therein will definitely affect the validity of the seizure. While on the subject, it will be profitable to refer the well considered judgment rendered by a learned single Judge of this Court in Madhu K v. Sub Inspector of Police and others [2020 (5) KLT 483]. Therein, the practice of certain police officers of directing freezing of accounts without reporting to the Magistrate concerned was deprecated. As rightly observed in the judgment, the police officer acting under Section 102 Cr.P.C cannot be permitted to arrogate to himself an unregulated and unbridled power to freeze the bank account of a person on mere surmise and conjuncture, since such unguarded power may bring about drastic consequences affecting the right to privacy as well as reputation of the account holder. The other relevant portion of that judgment reads as under:-
Kerala High Court Cites 11 - Cited by 0 - V G Arun - Full Document

Faisal Pari vs Union Of India on 5 August, 2024

7. Thus it is no longer open for any person to contend that the delay in complying with Section 102 Cr.P.C would vitiate the seizure as such. This gives rise to an ancillary question, as to the impact of non- compliance of Section 102(3), by the failure on the part of the police officer concerned to report the seizure of bank account to the jurisdictional Magistrate. In my opinion, this question has to be addressed in the light of Article 300A of the Constitution of India, which stipulates that no person shall be deprived of his property except by authority of law. The authority of law in the cases under consideration is conferred by Section 102 Cr.P.C. Therefore, abject violation of the procedure prescribed therein will definitely affect the validity of the seizure. While on the subject, it will be profitable to refer the well considered judgment rendered by a learned single Judge of this Court in WP(C)No.20802 of 2024 10 Madhu K v. Sub Inspector of Police and others [2020 (5) KLT 483]. Therein, the practice of certain police officers of directing freezing of accounts without reporting to the Magistrate concerned was deprecated. As rightly observed in the judgment, the police officer acting under Section 102 Cr.P.C cannot be permitted to arrogate to himself an unregulated and unbridled power to freeze the bank account of a person on mere surmise and conjuncture, since such unguarded power may bring about drastic consequences affecting the right to privacy as well as reputation of the account holder. The other relevant portion of that judgment reads as under:-
Kerala High Court Cites 11 - Cited by 0 - V G Arun - Full Document

Muhammed Shameem Kp vs The Manager, Federal Bank on 9 August, 2024

7. Thus it is no longer open for any person to contend that the delay in complying with Section 102 Cr.P.C would vitiate the seizure as such. This gives rise to an ancillary question, as to the impact of non-compliance of Section 102(3), by the failure on the part of the police officer concerned to report the seizure of bank account to the jurisdictional Magistrate. In my opinion, this question has to be addressed in the light of Article 300A of the Constitution of India, which stipulates that no person shall be deprived of his property except by authority of law. The authority 2024:KER:63193 WP(C) NO. 27117 OF 2024 -9- of law in the cases under consideration is conferred by Section 102 Cr.P.C. Therefore, abject violation of the procedure prescribed therein will definitely affect the validity of the seizure. While on the subject, it will be profitable to refer the well considered judgment rendered by a learned single Judge of this Court in Madhu K v. Sub Inspector of Police and others [2020 (5) KLT 483]. Therein, the practice of certain police officers of directing freezing of accounts without reporting to the Magistrate concerned was deprecated. As rightly observed in the judgment, the police officer acting under Section 102 Cr.P.C cannot be permitted to arrogate to himself an unregulated and unbridled power to freeze the bank account of a person on mere surmise and conjuncture, since such unguarded power may bring about drastic consequences affecting the right to privacy as well as reputation of the account holder. The other relevant portion of that judgment reads as under:-
Kerala High Court Cites 11 - Cited by 0 - V G Arun - Full Document

Abdulla.N vs Union Of India on 9 August, 2024

7. Thus it is no longer open for any person to contend that the delay in complying with Section 102 Cr.P.C would vitiate the seizure as such. This gives rise to an ancillary question, as to the impact of non-compliance of Section 102(3), by the failure on the part of the police officer concerned to report the seizure of bank account to the jurisdictional Magistrate. In my opinion, this question has to be addressed in the light of Article 300A of the Constitution of India, which stipulates that no person shall be deprived of his property except by authority of law. The authority of law in the cases under consideration is conferred by Section 102 Cr.P.C. Therefore, abject violation of the procedure prescribed therein will definitely affect the validity of the seizure. While on the subject, it will be profitable to refer the well considered judgment rendered by a learned single Judge of this Court in Madhu K v. Sub Inspector of Police and others [2020 (5) KLT 483]. Therein, the practice of certain police officers of directing freezing of accounts without reporting to the Magistrate concerned was deprecated. As rightly 2024:KER:63191 WP(C) NO. 26886 OF 2024 -12- observed in the judgment, the police officer acting under Section 102 Cr.P.C cannot be permitted to arrogate to himself an unregulated and unbridled power to freeze the bank account of a person on mere surmise and conjuncture, since such unguarded power may bring about drastic consequences affecting the right to privacy as well as reputation of the account holder. The other relevant portion of that judgment reads as under:-
Kerala High Court Cites 11 - Cited by 0 - V G Arun - Full Document

Muhammed Faseeh M K vs Axis Bank on 9 August, 2024

7. Thus it is no longer open for any person to contend that the delay in complying with Section 102 Cr.P.C would vitiate the seizure as such. This gives rise to an ancillary question, as to the impact of non-compliance of Section 102(3), by the failure on the part of the police officer concerned to report the seizure of bank account to the jurisdictional Magistrate. In my opinion, this question has to be addressed in the light of Article 300A of the Constitution of India, which stipulates that no person shall be deprived of his property except by authority of law. The authority of law in the cases under consideration is conferred by Section 102 Cr.P.C. Therefore, abject violation of the procedure prescribed therein will definitely affect the validity of the seizure. While on the subject, it will be profitable to refer the well considered judgment rendered by a learned single Judge of this Court in Madhu K v. Sub Inspector of Police and others [2020 (5) KLT 2024:KER:60946 WP(C) NO. 26308 OF 2024 10 483]. Therein, the practice of certain police officers of directing freezing of accounts without reporting to the Magistrate concerned was deprecated. As rightly observed in the judgment, the police officer acting under Section 102 Cr.P.C cannot be permitted to arrogate to himself an unregulated and unbridled power to freeze the bank account of a person on mere surmise and conjuncture, since such unguarded power may bring about drastic consequences affecting the right to privacy as well as reputation of the account holder. The other relevant portion of that judgment reads as under:-
Kerala High Court Cites 11 - Cited by 0 - V G Arun - Full Document

Neeraj S vs The South Indian Bank on 9 August, 2024

7. Thus it is no longer open for any person to contend that the delay in complying with Section 102 Cr.P.C would vitiate the seizure as such. This gives rise to an ancillary question, as to the impact of non-compliance of Section 102(3), by the failure on the part of the police officer concerned to report the seizure of bank account to the jurisdictional Magistrate. In my opinion, this question has to be addressed in the light of Article 300A of the Constitution of India, which stipulates that no person shall be deprived of his property except by authority of law. The authority of law in the cases under consideration is conferred by Section 102 Cr.P.C. Therefore, abject violation of the procedure prescribed therein will definitely affect the validity of the seizure. While on the subject, it will be profitable to refer the well considered judgment rendered by a learned single Judge of this Court in Madhu K v. Sub Inspector of Police and others [2020 (5) KLT 483]. Therein, the practice of 2024:KER:63192 WP(C) NO. 27190 OF 2024 -12- certain police officers of directing freezing of accounts without reporting to the Magistrate concerned was deprecated. As rightly observed in the judgment, the police officer acting under Section 102 Cr.P.C cannot be permitted to arrogate to himself an unregulated and unbridled power to freeze the bank account of a person on mere surmise and conjuncture, since such unguarded power may bring about drastic consequences affecting the right to privacy as well as reputation of the account holder. The other relevant portion of that judgment reads as under:-
Kerala High Court Cites 11 - Cited by 0 - V G Arun - Full Document

Salim V.K vs State Of Kerala on 16 August, 2024

7. Thus it is no longer open for any person to contend that the delay in complying with Section 102 Cr.P.C would vitiate the seizure as such. This gives rise to an ancillary question, as to the impact of non- compliance of Section 102(3), by the failure on the part of the police officer concerned to report the seizure of bank account to the jurisdictional Magistrate. In my opinion, this question has to be addressed in the light of Article 300A of the Constitution of India, which stipulates that no person shall be deprived of his property except by authority of law. The authority of law in the cases under consideration is conferred by Section 102 Cr.P.C. Therefore, abject violation of the procedure prescribed therein will definitely affect the validity of the seizure. While on the subject, it will be profitable to refer the well considered judgment WP(C)No.25664 of 2024 2024:KER:64920 11 rendered by a learned single Judge of this Court in Madhu K v. Sub Inspector of Police and others [2020 (5) KLT 483]. Therein, the practice of certain police officers of directing freezing of accounts without reporting to the Magistrate concerned was deprecated. As rightly observed in the judgment, the police officer acting under Section 102 Cr.P.C cannot be permitted to arrogate to himself an unregulated and unbridled power to freeze the bank account of a person on mere surmise and conjuncture, since such unguarded power may bring about drastic consequences affecting the right to privacy as well as reputation of the account holder. The other relevant portion of that judgment reads as under:-
Kerala High Court Cites 11 - Cited by 0 - V G Arun - Full Document

M/S. Jiya Tours And Travels vs Union Of India on 16 August, 2024

7. Thus it is no longer open for any person to contend that the delay in complying with Section 102 Cr.P.C would vitiate the seizure as such. This gives rise to an ancillary question, as to the impact of non- compliance of Section 102(3), by the failure on the part of the police officer concerned to report the seizure of bank account to the jurisdictional Magistrate. In my opinion, this question has to be addressed in the light of Article 300A of the Constitution of India, which stipulates that no person shall be deprived of his property except by authority of law. The authority of law in the cases under consideration is conferred by Section 102 Cr.P.C. Therefore, abject violation of the procedure prescribed therein will definitely affect the validity of the seizure. While on the subject, it will be profitable to refer the well considered judgment rendered by a learned single Judge of this Court in WP(C)No.26470 of 2024 10 Madhu K v. Sub Inspector of Police and others [2020 (5) KLT 483]. Therein, the practice of certain police officers of directing freezing of accounts without reporting to the Magistrate concerned was deprecated. As rightly observed in the judgment, the police officer acting under Section 102 Cr.P.C cannot be permitted to arrogate to himself an unregulated and unbridled power to freeze the bank account of a person on mere surmise and conjuncture, since such unguarded power may bring about drastic consequences affecting the right to privacy as well as reputation of the account holder. The other relevant portion of that judgment reads as under:-
Kerala High Court Cites 11 - Cited by 0 - V G Arun - Full Document
1   2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 Next