Search Results Page
Search Results
1 - 9 of 9 (0.31 seconds)Section 106 in The Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 [Entire Act]
Article 300A in Constitution of India [Constitution]
Section 458 in The Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 [Entire Act]
State Of Maharashtra vs Tapas D. Neogy on 16 September, 1999
9. The Honourable Supreme Court in State of
Maharashtra v. Tapas D Neogy [(1999) 7 SCC 685] has
held that the bank account of the accused or any of his
relatives can be treated as "property" for the purpose of
Section 102 of the Code.
Madhu.K vs The Sub Inspector Of Police on 26 August, 2020
13. In my considered view, 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] ,
wherein the practice of certain police officers of directing
freezing of accounts without reporting to the Magistrate
concerned was deprecated. This Court has directed in the
judgment that 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
WP(C) NO. 35167 OF 2024
10
2024:KER:91237
consequences affecting the right to privacy as well as
reputation of the account holder. The other relevant portion
of that judgment reads as under:-
Section 457 in The Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 [Entire Act]
Shento Varghese vs Julfikar Husen on 28 August, 2023
11. Subsequently, another issue arose with
respect to cases in which there was a delay in reporting the
seizure to the Magistrate. This led to divergent views being
expressed by different High Courts. The issue was set at
rest by the Honourable Supreme Court in Shento
Varghese v. Julfikar Husen and others [2024 SCC
OnLine SC 895] in the following lines:
Dr Sajeer vs Reserve Bank Of India on 2 May, 2023
14. The above discussion leads to the conclusion
that, while delay in forthwith reporting the seizure to the
Magistrate may only be an irregularity, total failure to
report the seizure will definitely have a negative impact on
the validity of the seizure. In such circumstances, account
holders like the petitioner, most of whom are not even made
accused in the crimes registered, cannot be made to wait
indefinitely hoping that the police may act in tune with
Section 102 of Cr.P.C. and report the seizure as mandated
under Sub-section (3) at some point of time.
WP(C) NO. 35167 OF 2024
11
2024:KER:91237
In the above conspectus, this writ petition is
disposed off by passing the following directions, in addition
to the directions in Dr.Sajeer (supra):
1