Search Results Page

Search Results

1 - 10 of 10 (0.37 seconds)
Sam Basheer Thambi vs Union Of India on 7 August, 2024 cites

State Of Maharashtra vs Tapas D. Neogy on 16 September, 1999

6. A reading of Section 102, makes it clear that the police has the power to 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 2024:KER:63195 WP(C) NO. 24781 OF 2024 -7- offence. The Apex 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.
Supreme Court of India Cites 23 - Cited by 173 - Full Document

Teesta Atul Setalvad vs The State Of Gujarat on 15 December, 2017

Later, in Teesta Atul Setalvad v. State of Gujarat [(2018) (2) SCC 372], the Supreme Court also held that the Investigating Officer can issue instruction to seize the suspected bank accounts, subject to his submitting a report to the Magistrate concerned, as mandated in sub-section (3) of Section 102. Thereafter, another issue arose with respect to cases in which there was delay in reporting the seizure to the Magistrate. This led to divergent views being expressed by different High Courts. Some High Courts held that delayed reporting to the Magistrate would, ipso facto, vitiate the seizure order; certain other High Courts held that the delay in reporting would constitute a mere irregularity and would not vitiate the seizure order.
Supreme Court of India Cites 21 - Cited by 92 - A M Khanwilkar - Full Document

Madhu.K vs The Sub Inspector Of Police on 26 August, 2020

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 13 - Cited by 1 - T V Anilkumar - Full Document
1