9911796707
|
Home
Issues Involved:
1. Whether the words "any property" in Section 102 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 include "immovable property." 2. Whether a police officer can take control of any immovable property under circumstances that create suspicion of the commission of any offense. 3. Which of the two conflicting judgments (Kishore Shankar Signapurkar vs. State of Maharashtra & Ors. and M/s. Bombay Science and Research Education Institute vs. State of Maharashtra & Ors.) lay down the correct law regarding the powers of a police officer to seize immovable property under Section 102 of the Code. 4. Whether the Supreme Court's ruling in State of Maharashtra v. Tapas D. Neogy is restricted to the seizure of bank accounts or can be extended to immovable property as interpreted by the Division Bench in M/s. Bombay Science and Research Education Institute. Detailed Analysis: Issue 1: Inclusion of Immovable Property under "Any Property" in Section 102 The judgment deliberated on whether the term "any property" in Section 102 includes immovable property. The court noted that the term "property" is used in a broader sense in various sections of the Indian Penal Code (IPC) and the Code of Criminal Procedure (CrPC). However, it emphasized that the context and specific wording of Section 102 suggest that "property" refers to movable property capable of being produced before the court. The court held that immovable property cannot be seized under Section 102 because it cannot be transported or produced before the court, as required by the section. Issue 2: Police Officer's Control Over Immovable Property The court examined whether a police officer can take control of immovable property under circumstances creating suspicion of an offense. It concluded that the term "seizure" is contextually used for movable property, and "attachment" is more appropriate for immovable property. The court found it impractical and legally unsound to allow police officers to seize immovable property under Section 102, as it could lead to misuse and potential abuse of power. Issue 3: Correct Interpretation of Law The court compared the conflicting judgments in Kishore Shankar Signapurkar and M/s. Bombay Science and Research Education Institute. It concluded that the judgment in Kishore Shankar Signapurkar, which held that immovable property cannot be seized under Section 102, lays down the correct law. The court reasoned that the interpretation in M/s. Bombay Science and Research Education Institute, which extended the Supreme Court's ruling in Tapas Neogy to include immovable property, was incorrect. Issue 4: Scope of Tapas Neogy Judgment The court analyzed whether the Supreme Court's ruling in Tapas Neogy, which allowed the seizure of bank accounts under Section 102, could be extended to immovable property. It concluded that the Supreme Court's decision was specific to bank accounts and did not imply that immovable property could also be seized under Section 102. The court emphasized that the context and wording of the judgment in Tapas Neogy were limited to movable property, specifically bank accounts. Conclusion: The court held that: 1. The term "any property" in Section 102 does not include immovable property. 2. A police officer cannot take control of immovable property under Section 102. 3. The judgment in Kishore Shankar Signapurkar correctly interprets the law, while the judgment in M/s. Bombay Science and Research Education Institute does not. 4. The Supreme Court's ruling in Tapas Neogy is restricted to the seizure of bank accounts and cannot be extended to immovable property.
|
