9911796707
TMI Blog2010 (11) TMI 1019X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... rs of seizure under Section 102 of the Criminal Procedure Code 1973 are not applicable for the immovable property and with respect I could not persuade or agree with the same view. Hence this separate judgment. 2. A Division Bench of this Court while hearing this petition was confronted with two divergent findings on the issue as to whether an immovable property could be seized under Section 102 of the Criminal Procedure Code, 1973 (for short the Code ). As per the petitioners Section 102 of the Code envisages seizure of only movable property, but the respondents, including the State of Maharashtra, contended before the Division Bench that the word any property used in Section 102 of the Code cannot be restricted to movable property alone and immovable property can also be seized under the said Section. The Division Bench in its order dated 1st April, 2010 observed in para 12 as under:- 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 Section 102 (1) of the Code and not whether unde ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... the above stated four issues set out in the referral order. 4. In Kishore Shankar Signapurkar's case the Division Bench considered the following points:- (i) Whether the police can seize immovable property under the provisions of Section 102 of the Code of Criminal Procedure? (ii) Whether the police can seize or freeze Bank accounts under the provisions of section 102 of the Code of Criminal Procedure; (iii) What is the procedure to be followed by the police in respect of the property seized under the provisions of section 102 of the Code of Criminal Procedure. After referring to the arguments advanced by the parties and the judgments cited across the bar the Division Bench concluded its findings, as under on the first two issues framed by it. (a) The word property as used in Section 102 of the Cr.P.C. cannot include immovable property and (b) the police have no power under the provisions of Section 102 to direct the bank accounts to be freezed and prevent the account holder from operating the bank account. The short reasoning on the first issue in the said case finds place in the following observations of the Division Bench:- As a matter of fa ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... l Procedure Code, but immovable properties can not be properties within the meaning of Section 102........ 11. We do not find that there is any basis for such distinction to be made in the movable and immovable properties as far as property is mentioned in Section 102. All properties whether movable or immovable in our view can be seized by police under Section 102, as there is nothing in the provision to show that the property would include only movable and not immovable. The Supreme Court has held in the para quoted above there was no justification to come to the conclusion that the property should be defined in the narrow sense . 6. In Tapas D. Neogy's case (supra) the main question for consideration before the Apex Court was, whether the investigating officer can pass orders freezing the bank account or issue prohibitory orders to the bank not to allow the account holder to operate the account by invoking the powers under Section 102 of the Code. The Supreme Court reproduced the provisions of Section 102 of the Code and in para 6 stated as under:- 6. A plain reading of sub-section (1) of Section 102 indicates that the police officer has the power to ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... estigation can seize or prohibit the operation of the said account if such assets have direct links with the commission of the offence for which the police officer is investigating into. The contrary view expressed by the Karnataka, Gauhati and Allahabad High Courts, does not represent the correct law. It may also be seen that under the Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988, in the matter of imposition of fine under sub- section (2) of Section 13, the legislatures have provided that the courts in fixing the amount of fine shall take into consideration the amount or the value of the property which the accused person has obtained by committing the offence or where the conviction is for an offence referred to in clause (e) of sub-section (1) of Section 13, the pecuniary resources or property for which the accused person is unable to account satisfactorily. The interpretation given by us in respect of the power of seizure under Section 102 of the Criminal Procedure Code is in accordance with the intention of the legislature engrafted in Section 16 of the Prevention of Corruption Act referred to above. In the aforesaid premises, we have no hesitation to come to the conclusion that t ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... erence or implication. Though Section 102 of the Code can be divided in two different parties, in the first part the property stolen is different from the words stolen property as defined in Section 410 of the I.P.C., and, therefore, the immovable property is not covered in the first part. As regards the second part of Section 102 of the Code, it was submitted that it cannot apply to an immovable property as the word used is found and an immovable property cannot be found and it stays where it is. The entire phrase found in circumstances which creates suspicion of the commission of any offence which is the second part of Section 102 of the Code would apply only to movable property. Section 102 of the Code finds its place in Chapter VII of the Code and heading of the said Chapter uses the word things and, therefore, it is impossible to imagine by the common usage of the word things that the same would also mean immovable property as an immoveable property cannot be said to be things . He also urged that Sections 451 to 459 of the Code also support his arguments. Section 456 specifically takes care of immovable property and it does not contemplate that the immovable ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... hment and disposal , etc. It was submitted that unless the property is seized during the course of investigation by the police , the power of attachment to be invoked by the Magistrate or by the Court cannot be applied effectively, in given cases as the property in the meanwhile would have changed hands, more so if it is a property acquired from the proceeds of crime/offence. The term any property has to be interpreted so as to make the procedural law effective and a restricted meaning to the said words would, at times, render the Code ineffective. When the words used in the statute are clear, plain and unambiguous, the Courts have no power to delete or add any other words in the statute. The judgment in the case of Tapas D. Neogy (supra) clearly states that the word any property cannot be given a limited meaning and to keep pace with the changing scenario of different organised crimes, it would be imperative that the words any property must include movable property as well as immovable property otherwise the legislature would not have used the adjective any before the word property . The seizure does not connote merely taking physical possession of the property b ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ar 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. 9. It may be useful to quote for our ready reference some of the Sections of the Code including Section 102 which have been referred to and relied upon during the course of arguments, including Sections 68-C to 68-F of the N.D.P.S. Act and the Criminal Law (Amendment) Ordinance 1944. The Code of Criminal Procedure: S.83.(1) The Court issuing a proclamation under Section 82 may, for reasons to be recorded in writing, at any time after the issue of the proclamation, order the attachment of any property, movable or immovable or both, belonging to the proclaimed person: Provided that where at the time of issue of the proclamation the Court is satisfied, by affidavit or otherwise, that the person in relation to whom the proclamation is to be issued- (a) is about to dispose of the whole or any part of his proper ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ed is such that it cannot be conveniently transported to the Court, (or where there is difficulty in securing proper accommodation for the custody of such property, or where the continued retention of the property in police custody may not be considered necessary for the purpose of investigation) he may give custody thereof to any person on his executing a bond undertaking to produce the property before the Court as and when required and to give effect to the further orders of the Court as to the disposal of the same. (Provided that where the property seized under sub-section (1) is subject to speedy and natural decay and if the person entitled to the possession of such property is unknown or absent and the value of such property is less than five hundred rupees, it may forthwith be sold by auction under the orders of the Superintendent of Police and the provisions of sections 457 and 458 shall, as nearly as may be practicable, apply to the net proceeds of such sale.) 105-A. Definitions.- In this Chapter, unless the context otherwise requires,- (a) contracting State means any country or place outside India in respect of which arrangements have been made by the Central Gover ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... h property, he may make an order for seizing such property and where it is not practicable to seize such property, he may make an order of attachment directing that such property shall not be transferred or otherwise dealt with, except with the prior permission of the officer making such order, and a copy of such order shall be served on the person concerned. (2) Any order made under sub-section (1) shall have no effect unless the said order is confirmed by an order of the said Court, within a period of thirty days of its being made. S.105-H. Forfeiture of property in certain cases.- (1) The Court may, after considering the explanation, if any, to the show-cause notice issued under section 105-G and the material available before it and after giving to the person affected (and in a case where the person affected holds any property specified in the notice through any other person, to such other person also) a reasonable opportunity of being heard, by order, record a finding whether all or any of the properties in question are proceeds of crime: S.105-L. Application of this Chapter.- The Central Government may, by notification in the Official Gazette, direct that the appl ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... o the subject of dispute by any Civil Court, the Magistrate- (a) shall order the receiver appointed by him to hand over the possession of the subject of dispute to the receiver appointed by the Civil Court and shall thereafter discharge the receiver appointed by him; (b) may make such other incidental or consequential orders as may be just. 451. Order for custody and disposal of property pending trial in certain cases.- When any property is produced before any Criminal Court during any inquiry or trial, the Court may make such order as it thinks fit for the proper custody of such property pending the conclusion of the inquiry or trial, and, if the property is subject to speedy and natural decay, or if it is otherwise expedient so to do, the Court may, after recording such evidence as it thinks necessary, order it to be sold or otherwise disposed of. Explanation.- For the purposes of this section, property includes- (a) property of any kind or document which is produced before the Court or which is in its custody. (b) any property regarding which an offence appears to have been committed or which appears to have been used for the commission of any offence. ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ch order shall be made by the Court more than one month after the date of the conviction. The Criminal Law (Amendment) Ordinance, 1944: 4.Ad interim attachment.- (1) Upon receipt of an application under section 3, the District Judge shall, unless for reasons to be recorded in writing he is of the opinion that there exist no prima facie grounds for believe that the person in respect of whom the application is made has committed any scheduled offence or that he has procured thereby any money or other property, pass without delay an ad interim order attaching the money or other property alleged to have been so procured, or if it transpires that such money or other property is not available for attachment, such other property of the said person of equivalent value as the District Judge may think fit: Provided that the District Judge may if he thinks fit before passing such order, and shall before refusing to pass such order, examine the person or persons making the affidavit accompanying the application. (2) At the same time as he passes an order under sub-section (1), the District Judge shall issue to the person whose money or other property is being attached, a notice, a ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... eof, the agent of the (State Government or, as the case may be, the Central Government) shall without delay inform the District Judge, and shall where criminal proceedings have been taken in any Court, furnish the District Judge with a copy of the judgment or order of the trying Court and with copies of the judgments or orders, if any, of the appellate or revisional Courts thereon. (2) Where it is reported to the District Judge under sub-section (1) that cognizance of the alleged scheduled offence has not been taken or where the final judgment or order of the Criminal Court is one of acquittal, the District Judge shall forthwith withdrawn any orders of attachment of property made in connection with the offence, or where security has been given in lieu of such attachment, order such security to be returned. (3) Where the final judgment or order of the Criminal Courts is one of conviction, the District Judge shall order that from the property of the convicted person attached under this Ordinance or out of the security given in lieu of such attachment, there shall be forfeited to Government such amount or value as is found, in the final judgment or order of the Criminal Courts ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... deduction as aforesaid, be distributed among them in preparation to the loss sustained by each. THE SCHEDULE (See section 2) OFFENCES IN CONNECTION WITH WHICH PROPERTY IS LIABLE TO BE ATTACHED 2. An offence punishable under section 406 or section 408 or section 409 of the Indian Penal Code (45 of 1860), where the property in respect of which the offence is committed is property entrusted by His Majesty's Government in the United Kingdom or in any part of His Majesty's dominions or the Central or a State Government or a department of any such Government or a local authority [or a corporation established by or under a Central, provincial or State Act, or an authority or a body owned or controlled or aided by Government company as defined in section 617 of the Companies Act, 1956 (1 of 1956), or a society aided by such corporation, authority, body or Government company] or a person acting on behalf of any such Government or department or authority [or corporation or body or Government company or society]. 3. An offence punishable under section 411 or section 414 of the Indian Penal Code (45 of 1860), where the stolen property in respect of which the offence is c ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... illegally acquired property, he may, after recording reasons for doing so, proceed to take all steps necessary for tracing and identifying such property.) (2) The steps referred to in sub-section (1) may include any inquiry, investigation or survey in respect of any person, place, property, assets, documents, books of account in any bank or public financial institution or any other relevant matters. (3) Any inquiry, investigation or survey referred to in sub-section (2) shall be carried out by an officer mentioned in sub-section (1) in accordance with such directions or guidelines as the competent authority may make or issue in this behalf. 68-F. Seizure or freezing of illegally acquired property.- (1) Where any officer conducting an inquiry or investigation under section 68-E has reason to believe that any property in relation to which such inquiry or investigation is being conducted is an illegally acquired property and such property is likely to be concealed, transferred or dealt with in any manner which will result in frustrating any proceeding relating to forfeiture of such property under this Chapter, he may make an order for seizing such property and where it is not p ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... is investigating or any other offence; (b) that it is necessary to do so in order to prevent it being concealed, lost, tampered with or destroyed. However, such a power cannot be invoked when the constable has reasonable grounds for believing to be a subject to legal privilege. The word premises itself would refer to the immovable property and any thing on the premises would refer to only the movable property. The above said scheme is not comparable to the scheme of Section 102 of the Code, even by inference, and to support the contention that the seizure of property under Section 102 of the Code is only with respect to the movable property. 11. The power of seizure in Section 102 (1) of the Code is in two parts i.e. any police officer may seize any property (a) which may be alleged or suspected to bave been stolen or (b) which may be found under circumstances which create suspicion of the commission of any offence. Thus the power of seizure is in respect of any property . As per sub-section (2) of Section 102 of the Code if the police officer seizing the property is subordinate to the officer in charge of a police station, he shall forthwith report the seizure to ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ty. Whereas movable property has been defined under Section 22 of I.P.C. And it reads as under:- 22.Moveable property-- The words movable property are intended to include corporal property of every description, except land and things attached to the earth or permanently fastened to anything attached to the earth. Thus what is excepted from Section 22 of the I.P.C. is an immovable property. 13. The words seizure , attachment freezing , forfeiture disposal and return have been used in different sections of the Code and certainly in different context. The word seizure cannot be said to be synonymous with the word attachment in every case. However, attachment may include seizure . Attachment of property is done under the Court's or Magistrate's order and seizure under Section 102 of the Code is done by the police officer. However, under some special penal statutes, the police officer has been entrusted with the powers of provisional attachment, and it may be accepted that such powers are synonymous to seizure . As per Black's Law Dictionary the meaning of the words seizure , attachment freezing , forfeiture and disposal is as ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... operty cannot be accepted, if the Code which is a procedural law, has to remain an effective instrument for investigation and trial of the offences under the I.P.C. as well as the special penal statutes and to do full and complete justice to the victims of modern crimes. 15. When it comes to the interpretation of statutes, it has to be presumed that the legislature does not waste its words and say anything in vain. The construction which attributes redundancy to the legislature has to be avoided. The legislature is presumed to have inserted every part of the statute for a purpose and hence should be given effect to. The ordinary rule of interpretation is that the words used by the legislature shall be given such meaning as the legislature has chosen to assign them by coining definitions contained in the interpretation clause and in the absence thereof the words would be given such meaning as they are susceptible in ordinary parlance may be by having recourse to dictionaries as has been held by the Constitution Bench in the case of State of West Bengal vs. Kesoram Industries Ltd. Ors., 2004 10 S.C.C. 201. The court should not be over zealous in searching for ambiguities or obs ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... tive. The Court's interpretations of criminal procedural laws must be capable of dealing with the rampant corruption in public life as well as innovative manipulations of scamsters, underworld dons, cyber crime offenders, corporate manipulators, food and drugs adulterators and crime syndicates. Any narrow interpretation of criminal procedural law, evolved by the Courts, may lead to the defeat of social, public, economic, health, industrial and environmental interests of the country. At the same time the Courts must provide for checks and balances so that the police are kept within the bounds of law. The power of seizure as envisaged under Section 102 of the Code ought to be treated as procedural and not penal. It has built-in safeguards and on seizure of the property the police officer in charge is required to report forthwith such seizure to the Court concerned. It has sufficient means to keep the police officer invoking the powers of seizure within the bounds of law, so as to ensure that the powers are not misused or abused. It is the mandate that the seizure effected is required to be reported forthwith to the Magistrate having jurisdiction. The production of the prope ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... but on the fact whether that particular kind of property can be subject to the acts covered by that section. It is in this sense that it may be said that the word `property' in a particular section covers only that type of property with respect to which the offence contemplate in that section can be committed. 48. Section 22 I.P.C. defines `movable property'. The definition is not exhasutive. According to the section the words `movable property' are intended to include corporeal property of every description, except land and things attached to the earth or permanently fastened to anything which is attached to the earth. The definition is of the expression `movable property' and not of `property' and can apply to all corporeal property except property excluded from the definition. It is thus clear that the word `property' is used in the Code in a much wider sense than the expression `movable property'. It is not, therefore, necessary to consider in detail what type of property will be included in the various sections of the Indian Penal Code. 50. It is to be noticed that though S. 403 I.P.C. speaks of dishonestly misappropriating or converting to o ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... use the Chapter speaks of the production of things , the words any property used in Section 102 (1) of the Code cannot include immovable property. The word things may not include a bank account, but it does not mean that the power of seizure under Section 102(1) cannot be invoked by the Police Officer for a bank account and the view otherwise taken by this Court in t he case of Kishore Shankar Signapurkar (supra) has already been set aside by the Supreme Court in Tapas D. Neogy (supra). The Supreme Court reminded in the said case that the legislature having used the expression any property and any office in Section 102(1) of the Code has made the applicability of the provisions to cover offences committed under any Act provided two preconditions for applicability of the said Sections are made i.e. (1) it must be property and (2) in respect of the said property there must have been suspicion of commission of any offence. While elaborating on this point, the Supreme Court further stated that there was no justification to give any narrow interpretation to the provisions of the Code and more particularly to the words any property as set out in Section 102(1) of the Code. ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... e of the Court and by the officer not below the rank of Sub Inspector of Police as directed by the Court. Section 105-C is in relation to the orders of attachment or forfeiture of property whereas Section 105-E is regarding seizure or attachment of property while conducting an enquiry or investigation under Section 105-D which enquiry is for identifying unlawfully acquired property. Section 105-A provides for the management of the property seized or forfeited under Chapter VIIA. Sections 145 and 146 find place in Chapter X and titled as Maintenance of Public Order and Tranquility (under sub part D-Disputes as to Immovable Property). Both these Sections find their place in Chapter X. Section 145 prescribes the procedure where a dispute concerning land or water is likely to cause breach of peace, whereas Section 146 is power to attach the subject of dispute and to appoint receiver by the Magistrate after making an order under Section 145 of the Code. 21. Sections 451 to 459 are part of Chapter XXXIV and the said Chapter is titled as Disposal of Property . Section 451 provides for the order for custody and disposal of property pending trial in certain cases and such an order ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ction 458 and the appeal will lie to the Court to which the appeals ordinarily lie on conviction by the Magistrate. 22. The scheme of Sections 457 and 458 of the Code if read together would go to show that the powers under section 102 of the Code of seizure are also applicable to an immovable property and it cannot be said that the police officer has no power to seize the immovable property and the said powers can be exercised only in respect of the movable property or the bank accounts. Such limited meaning if given to the words any property would make the procedure of seizure and subsequent action of attachment by the Court otiose. When the statute has used the words any property' , in the course of its interpretation, the Court has no power to restrict its scope so as to apply it only to the movable property. The learned Counsel for the petitioner insisted that there has to be an addition in the words any property and the addition must be the word movable between any and property . In a way these arguments presuppose that the legislature has dropped the word movable and, therefore, it is required to be added. It is well settled that the Courts have no pl ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... and its remedy to which an enactment is directed. 24. Section 102 of the Code has used the words any property and it must be read in the same manner and the word any cannot be redundant. As noted earlier Section 105A of the Code has defined the term property and it means property and assets of every description whether corporeal or incorporeal, movable or immovable, tangible or intangible and deeds and instruments evidencing title to, or interest in, such property or assets derived or used in the commission of an offence and includes property obtained through proceeds of crime. However, Chapter VII-A deals with a reciprocal arrangements for assistance in relation to criminal matter in a contracting State or in respect of a property in a contracting State or a property in India, but arising from a crime in the contracting State. There is no reason or specific provision in the Code as to why the same meaning of property as set out under Section 105-A cannot be made applicable for the term property appearing in Section 102 of the Code. It is prefixed by the word any and hence must include property of all types and it cannot be limited only to the movable prope ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... s of the Malimath Committee suggesting for amendment in Section 102 of the Code could be read as an intention to make the law more specific and without leaving any doubt for interpretation and such a recommendation cannot be taken to support the contentions that the words any property used in Section 102 of the Code means any movable property and such an interpretation finds support from the reasons set out in Tapas D. Neogy's case (supra) by the Apex Court. We must also note that in Topas Neogy case, the Supreme Court was aware of the Criminal Law (Amendment) Ordinance 1944 and by referring to Section 16 of the Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988, the Court held that the police officer has the power to seize the bank accounts. 25. I am, therefore, satisfied that the term any property used in Section 102 of the Code cannot be read as any movable property and it must include all types of properties, whether movable or immovable and merely because an immovable property cannot be produced before the Court on its seizure, does not lead to the conclusion that the words any property means any movable property . As noted earlier production of the property before the Co ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... by the Division Bench in the case of M/s. Bombay Science and Research Education Institute v. The State of Maharashtra Ors. 2008 All M.R. (Cri.) 2133? 28. The need to make this reference arose since a Division Bench of this Court in Kishore Shankar Signapurkar v. State of Maharashtra Ors., reported in 1997 Vol.IV LJ 793 had held that under Section 102 of the Code of Criminal Procedure immovable property could not be seized. That Bench had formulated the following questions in paragraph 18 of the said Judgment. 18. We make it clear that in these proceedings, we are dealing only with the scope and interpretation of section 102 of the Code of Criminal Procedure and we are not dealing specifically with factual aspects of any matter, the points which we would consider are as under:- (i) Whether the police can seize immovable property under the provisions of section 102 of the Code of Criminal Procedure? (ii) Whether the police can seize or freeze Banks accounts under the provisions of section 102 of the Code of Criminal Procedure? (iii) What is the procedure to be followed by the police in respect of the property seized under the provisions of section 102 of the Cod ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... on of the Division Bench of this Court. That being the nature of the amount in an account in a Bank, we are of the opinion that though such funds are property, it is not such a property which is capable of being produced in Court and, therefore, outside the purview of the provisions of section 102 of the Code of Criminal Procedure. 36. .... On consideration of the entire matter, we are of the view that the police have no power under the provisions of section 102 to direct the Banks accounts to be freezed and prevent the account holders from operating the account. 31. The finding on the third question in paragraph 38 reads as under:- 38. This brings us to the third question, viz., the procedure to be followed by the police. In fact, the procedure to be followed by the police is very clearly mentioned in the section itself. If the police officer is subordinate to the officer in charge of the police station, he must forthwith report the seizure to the officer-in-charge of the police station. Secondly, the police officer seizing the property under the provisions of sub-section (1) is also obliged to forthwith report the seizure to the Magistrate having jurisdiction and whe ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... of commission of any offence in relation to the same. .... 12. Having considered the divergent views taken by different High Courts with regard to the power of seizure under Section 102 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, and whether the bank account can be held to be property within the meaning of the said Section 102(1), we see no justification to give any narrow interpretation to the provisions of the Criminal Procedure Code. It is well known that corruption in public offices has become so rampant that it has become difficult to cope up with the same. Then again the time consumed by the courts in concluding the trials is another factor which should be borne in mind in interpreting the provisions of Section 102 of the Criminal Procedure Code and the underlying object engrafted therein, inasmuch as if there can be no order of seizure of the bank account of the accused then the entire money deposited in a bank which is ultimately held in the trial to be the outcome of the illegal gratification, could be withdrawn by the accused and the courts would be powerless to get the said money which has any direct link with the commission of the offence committed by the accused as a pub ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ontext the Bench held in paragraph Nos.9 to 11 as under:- 9. The Petitioners learned submits igcounsel that the for the immovable property cannot be attached and the learned counsel for the Petitioner had relied on some judgments of the High Courts. We do not think that the question is res integra in view of the judgment of State of Maharashtra Vs. Tapas D. Neogy, (1999) 7 S.C.C. 685. It is true that there was divergence of opinion with regard to the scope of the term the property mentioned in Section 102 before this judgment in various High Courts. But the controversy was put to rest by this judgment of the Supreme Court. In Para 12 of the said Judgment, the Supreme Court held that: We are, therefore, persuaded to take the view that the bank account of the accused or any of his relation is property within the meaning of Section 102 of the Criminal Procedure Code and a police officer in course of investigation can seize or prohibit the operation of the said account if such assets have direct links with the commission of the offence for which the police officer is investigating into. The contrary view expressed by Karnataka, Gauhati and Allahabad High Courts, does not re ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... tended that observations in Tapas Neogy could not be extended to cover seizure of immovable properties, as had been done in Bombay Science And Research Education Institute by a Division Bench of this Court. Their adversaries, on the other hand, submitted that the observations of the Supreme Court in paragraph 6 to the effect that, The legislature having used the expression `any property' and `any offence', have made the applicability of the provision wide enough to cover offences created under any Act, can not be ignored. It was submitted that the Supreme Court then considered only the question whether Bank accounts were property . It was submitted that as far as immovable property is concerned, there can be no doubt that it is property . Consequently the dictum of the Supreme Court that there was no justification to give any narrow interpretation to the term property , would have to be applied to include immovable property within the ambit of Section 102 of the Criminal Procedure Code. 38. The learned counsel for the petitioners also pointed out that seizure of bank accounts would be even otherwise permissible under Section 102 of Criminal Procedure Code. Since ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... erse (sic travel) beyond the judgment, ignoring what has been said in the judgment. We have therefore, no option but to dismiss the writ petition. 40. In paragraph 26 of Judgment in National Insurance Company's case (supra) the Supreme Court held that obiter dicta of the Supreme Court are binding on the High Courts, though for the Supreme Court they may only be persuasive. 41. The learned Additional Public Prosecutor submitted that attempting to make a distinction between binding effect of ratio and obiter dicta in Judgments of Supreme Court may be only an academic exercise as pointed out by a Full Bench of this Court in Kamleshkumar Ishwardas Patel v. Union of India and others, reported in 1994 (1) LJ Soft 313 = 1995 (2) Bom.C.R. 640, in the following words: 7. It must be borne in mind that what has been made binding under the provisions of Article 141 of the Constitution of India is the law declared by the Supreme Court . If there is a clear enunciation or declaration of law, the same would be binding even though such declaration was not strictly necessary for the disposal of the case or the declaration of law is not followed by actual application thereof in the c ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... old good about words in a Judgment. A Judgment is an authority only for what it decides and not for what logically follows from it, as held by the Supreme Court in U.P. State Electricity Board v. Pooran Chandra Pandey and others, reported in (2007) 11 SCC 92 as under:- 12. As observed by this Court in State of Orissa v. Sudhansu Sekhar Misra [AIR 1968 SC 647] (vide AIR pp.651-52, para 13): 13. ... A decision is only an authority for what it actually decides. What is of the essence in a decision is its ratio and not every observation found therein nor what logically follows from the various observations made in it. On this topic this is what Earl of Halsbury, L.C. Said in Quinn v. Leathem [1901 AC 495: (1900-03) All ER Rep 1 (HL)]: (All ER p.7 G-I) `Before discussing Allen v. Flood [1898 AC 1: (1895-99) All ER Rep 52 (HL)] and what was decided therein, there are two observations of a general character which I wish to make; and one is to repeat what I have very often said before - that every judgment must be read as applicable to the particular facts proved, or assumed to be proved, since the generality of the expressions which may be found there are not intended to be exposi ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... y by treating the ipsissima verba of Willes, J. as though they were part of an Act of Parliament and applying the rules of interpretation appropriate thereto. This is not to detract from the great weight to be given to the language actually used by that most distinguished judge, ...' 10. In Home Office v. Dorset Yatch Co. Ltd. [1970 AC 1004: (1970) 2 WLR 1140: (1970) 2 All ER 294 (HL)] (All ER p.297 g-h) Lord Reid said, `Lord Atkin's speech ... is not to be treated as if it were a statutory definition. It will require qualification in new circumstances.' Megarry, J. in Shepherd WLR 1062: (1971) 2 All ER 1267] observed: (All ER p.1274d) `One must not, of course, construe even a reserved judgment of even Russell, L.J. as if it were an Act of Parliament;' And, in Herrington v. British Railways Board [1972 AC 877: (1972) 2 WLR 537: (1972) 1 All ER 749 {HL(E)}] Lord Morris said: (All ER p.761c) `There is always peril in treating the words of a speech or a judgment as though they were words in a legislative enactment, and it is to be remembered that judicial utterances are made in the setting of the facts of a particular case.' 11. Circumstantial flexibility, on ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... er to regard a word, a clause or a sentence occurring in a judgment of the Supreme Court, divorced from its context, as containing a full exposition of the law on a question when the question did not even fall to be answered in that judgment. We have also considered the observations of the Supreme Court, on the doctrine of precedent in judgment of Supreme Court in State of U.P. and Another v. Synthetics Chemicals Ltd. and Another, reported in (1991) 4 SCC 139. 46. In the light of these judgments we have carefully considered the arguments advanced. First, in Tapas Neogy the question of seizure of bank account was being considered, which is a movable property in view of the definition in the Indian Penal Code, and about power to seize movable property, there was no controversy. Secondly, there is no reference or even a whisper about immovable property in the Judgment in Tapas Neogy. Approval by Supreme Court in para 9 of the Judgment of observations of learned Single Judge of Madras High Court is unhelpful since even the Madras High Court was considering whether money in a Bank account could be property which could be seized under Section 102 of the Code, and not the q ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... law laid down by the Surpeme Court in State of Maharashtra v. Tapas D. Neogy (supra) is restricted to seizure of bank account and cannot be extended to immovable property also, as interpreted by the Division Bench in M/s. Bombay Science Research Education Institute v. State of Maharashtra Ors. (supra). 48. This takes us to question (a), namely, (a) Whether the words any property used in sub-section (1) of Section 102 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 would mean to include immovable property ? 49. On behalf of petitioners it is submitted that immovable property is not included in the term any property in Section 102 of Criminal Procedure Code for the following reasons - most of which were canvassed before and accepted by a Division Bench of this Court which decided Kishore Signapurkar's case (supra). (i) Wherever the Legislature wanted to refer to immovable ig property it has specifically used the expression immovable property . (ii) Ordinarily in relation to immovable property the expression used is attachment and not seizure , and therefore, there would be no question of seizure of immovable property. (iii) The expression any property use ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... cept property excluded from the definition. At first blush it may seem that in the face of this judgment of the Supreme Court it was not open to the Division Bench deciding Kishore Signapurkar's case that the term property in Section 102 of Cr.P.C. excluded immovable property. However, apart from reasons given by the Division Bench deciding Signapurkar's case, it has to be pointed out first, that it may be impermissible to import interpretation of a word from altogether different statute, of a different character - a penal statute - for the purpose of interpreting a procedural provision. A penal statute must be so interpreted that no crook escapes punishment, but procedural laws have to be so interpreted that no innocent person would suffer. Reasons for including immovable property in the term property misappropriated or in respect of which criminal breach of trust is committed in penal statute would not be valid for including it in procedural provision enabling a police officer to seize it on suspicion of commission ig of a crime. Therefore, with great respect, it has to be observed that judgment of the Supreme Court in Dalmia's case (supra) does not come in con ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... in the new (1973) Code in paragraph 4 as under:- 4. Before closing this judgment, we would like to observe that even in the new Criminal Procedure Code, there is no express provision which empowers the police to get a bond from the person to whom the property seized is entrusted. This may lead to practical difficulties, for instance in cases where a bulky property, like an elephant or a car is seized and the magistrate is living at a great distance, it would be difficult for a police officer to report to the magistrate with the property. In these circumstances, we feel that the Government will be well advised to make suitable amendments in the CrPC to fill up this serious lacuna by giving power to the police for taking the bond in such circumstances. 57. Taking note of the lacuna pointed out by the Supreme Court, Section 102 was amended by an amendment in 1978 adding sub-section (3) to provide for contingency referred to by the Supreme Court. The argument is that the Supreme Court would not have referred to the requirement of taking the property to a Magistrate, had the property seizable under Section 102 been other than movable property. Though persuasive, this argument al ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... nd seizure being shown as synonymous in dictionaries is irrelevant. Every synonym has a contextual usage and one word cannot replace another only because it is synonymous. 60. With this prelude, before considering the question raised, it may be useful to quote for ready reference Section 102 of the Code and some of the other provisions of the Code where property is dealt with; along with provisions from other enactments, illustratively and not exhaustively. The Code of Criminal Procedure: S.83.(1) The Court issuing a proclamation under Section 82 may, for reasons to be recorded in writing, at any time after the issue of the proclamation, order the attachment of any property, movable or immovable or both, belonging to the proclaimed person: Provided that where at the time of issue of the proclamation the Court is satisfied, by affidavit or otherwise, that the person in relation to whom the proclamation is to be issued- (a) is about to dispose of the whole or any part of his property, or (b) is about to remove the whole or any part of his property from the local jurisdiction of the Court, it may order the attachment simultaneously with the issue of the proclamati ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ed retention of the property in police custody may not be considered necessary for the purpose of investigation) he may give custody thereof to any person on his executing a bond undertaking to produce the property before the Court as and when required and to give effect to the further orders of the Court as to the disposal of the same. (Provided that where the property seized under sub- section (1) is subject to speedy and natural decay and if the person entitled to the possession of such property is unknown or absent and the value of such property is less than five hundred rupees, it may forthwith be sold by auction under the orders of the Superintendent of Police and the provisions of sections 457 and 458 shall, as nearly as may be practicable, apply to the net proceeds of such sale.) 105-A. Definitions.- In this Chapter, unless the context otherwise requires,- (a) contracting State means any country or place outside India in respect of which arrangements have been made by the Central Government with the Government of such country through a treaty or otherwise; (b) identifying includes establishment of a proof that the property was derived from, or used in, the comm ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... to cause a breach of the peace exists concerning any land or water or the boundaries thereof, within his local jurisdiction, he shall make an order in writing, stating the grounds of his being so satisfied, and requiring the parties concerned in such dispute to attend his Court in person or by pleader, on a specified date and time, and to put in written statements of their respective claims as respects the fact of actual possession of the subject of dispute. (2) For the purposes of this section, the expression land or water includes buildings, markets, fisheries, crops or other produce of land, and the rents or profits of any such property. S.146.(1) If the Magistrate at any time after making the order under sub-section (1) of Section 145 considers the case to be one of emergency, or if he decides that none of the parties was then in such possession as is referred to in Section 145, or if he is unable to satisfy himself as to which of them was then in such possession of the subject of dispute, he may attach the subject of dispute until a competent Court has determined the rights of the parties thereto with regard to the person entitled to the possession thereof: Provid ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ce. (2) An order may be made under sub-section (1) for the delivery of any property to any person claiming to be entitled to the possession thereof, without any condition or on condition that he executes a bond with or without sureties, to the satisfaction of the Court, engaging to restore such property to the Court if the order made under sub-section (1) is modified or set aside on appeal or revision. (3) A Court of Sessions may, instead of itself making an order under sub-section (1), direct the property to be delivered to the Chief Judicial Magistrate, who shall thereupon deal with it in the manner provided in sections 457, 458 and 459. (4) Except where the property is livestock or is subject to speedy and natural decay, or where a bond has been executed in pursuance of sub-section (2), an order made under sub-section (1) shall not be carried out for two months, or when an appeal is presented, until such appeal has been disposed of. (5) In this section, the term property includes, in the case of property regarding which an offence appears to have been committed, not only such property as has been originally in the possession or under the control of any party, but a ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... uire any transferee of such property (whether or not he received the property directly from the said person) to appear on a date to be specified in the notice and show cause why so much of the transferee's property as is equivalent to the proper value of property transferred should not be attached. 13. Disposal of attached property upon termination of criminal proceedings.- (1) Upon the termination of any criminal proceedings for any scheduled offence in respect of which any order of attachment of property has been made under this Ordinance or security given in lieu thereof, the agent of the (State Government or, as the case may be, the Central Government) shall without delay inform the District Judge, and shall where criminal proceedings have been taken in any Court, furnish the District Judge with a copy of the judgment or order of the trying Court and with copies of the judgments or orders, if any, of the appellate or revisional Courts thereon. (2) Where it is reported to the District Judge under sub-section (1) that cognizance of the alleged scheduled offence has not been taken or where the final judgment or order of the Criminal Court is one of acquittal, the Distr ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ction 409 of the said Code has been committed. 4.An offence punishable under section 417 or section 420 of the Indian Penal Code (45 of 1860), where the person deceived is His Majesty's Government in the United Kingdom or in any part of His Majesty's dominions or the Central or State Government or a department of any such Government or a local authority or a corporation established by o under a Central, Provincial or State Act, or an authority or a body owned or controlled or aided by Government or a Government company as defined in section 617 of the Companies Act, 1956 (1 of 1956) or a society aided by such corporation, authority, body or Government Company or a person acting on behalf of any such Government or department (or authority or corporation or body or Government company or society). [4-A. An offence punishable under the Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988 (49 of 1988)] 5.Any conspiracy to commit or any attempt to commit or any abetment or any of the offences specified in [items 2, 3, 4 and 4-A]. The Narcotic Drugs and Psychotropic Substances Act: 68-C. Prohibition of holding illegally acquired property. ... 68-E. Identifying illegally acquired ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... nt in Section 105-C. The very fact that Section 105-A of the Cr.P.C. begins with the words In this chapter would indicate the legislative intent of restricting the definitions therein to the provisions of that chapter and this is the reason why these definitions cannot be applied to terms used in other parts of the Code including Section 102 of Cr.P.C.. Had the legislature so intended, it could have included these definitions in Section 2 of the Code, to make them applicable throughout the body of the Code. Rather the clarificatory Clause (d) of Section 105-A would indicate that since legislature was aware that property did not explicitly include all species of property, it felt the need to provide an expansive definition. 62. It may be useful to note that Rules 43, 51 and 54 in Order XXI of Civil Procedure Code, which deal with attachment of movables, negotiable instruments and immovable property respectively, the mode of attachment provided for movables and negotiable instruments is seizure, while attachment of immovable property has to be made by a prohibitory order. It may be useful to quote these rules as under:- 43. Attachment of movable property, other than agricu ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... des for attachment of movable property by seizure and attachment of immovable property by taking possession, appointment of receiver, prohibitory order, etc.. It is significant that while the section provides for seizure of movable property, it does not use the word seizure in relation to immovable property. Attachment of property in Section 146 of the Code is also relevant. As already pointed out, Sections 145 and 146 are contained in Part-D of Chapter X of the Code which is titled as `Disputes as to immovable property'. Therefore, it can not be said that the contention that term seizure is used in relation to movables and attachment in relation to immovables is without any merit. Section 456 of the Code refers to the power of the Courts to restore possession of immovable property. Therefore, if the provisions of Section 102 are examined in the above context, it would be difficult to conclude that any property would include immovable property since it would not be capable of being physically seized. Whenever the Legislature wanted to deal with immovable property it has specifically used that expression. Therefore by implication when this adjective is not u ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... single Judge of the Delhi High Court did consider this aspect. In Jagdish Chander Ors. v. State Ors., reported at 40 (1990) Delhi Law Times 233, the Delhi High Court was considering investigating officer's letter to a builder to withhold certain properties as investigation in offences punishable under Sections 380, 467, 468, 470 and 420 of the Indian Penal Code was pending. It was argued that Section 102 of the Cr.P.C. did not apply to immovable properties. The Court held that assuming that Section 102 of the Code applied to immovable property still it could not be seized unless it was found under circumstances which create suspicion of commission of offence. This limited object of the provisions in Section 102 of the Criminal Procedure Code cannot be lost sight of. Using this provision for seizing property to prevent an offender from utilising proceeds of crime was decidedly not intended, since whenever the Legislature felt such a need, they have so provided and at the cost of repetition we may point out that the provisions of the Criminal Law Amendment ordinance are a glaring example. 67. Section 102 basically deals with the manner in which a police officer has to c ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... It may be pointed out that in Tapas Neogy, this aspect as to whether the property, namely, Bank accounts could be seized under Section 102 of the Criminal Procedure Code for the purpose of preventing criminals from taking advantage of their ill-gotten wealth was not raised. The question as to whether Section 102 could be put to such use or whether seizure of immovable property was permissible under Section 102 even if it was not found under circumstances which create suspicion of the commission of offence, had not been raised and so cannot be said to have been decided even by implication. The belief that unless Section 102 was interpreted to include seizure of ill-gotten wealth, increase in incidents of corruption in public life cannot be adequately dealt with is belied by the Criminal Law (Amendment) Ordinance which contains adequate mechanism for attachment of such property. Offences under the Prevention of Corruption Act are included in entry 4A in Schedule to the Criminal Law (Amendment) Ordinance, 1944. Therefore, this was not and could not have been the rationale of the judgment in Tapas Neogy. On the other hand, we cannot lose sight of the fact that in Tapas Neogy, in pa ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... e that person with a record of what he seized. (2) The officer shall provide the record within a reasonable time from the making of the request for it. (3) Subject to subsection (8) below, if a request for permission to be granted access to anything which- (a) has been seized by a constable ; and (b) is retained by the police for the purpose of investigating an offence, is made to the officer in charge of the investigation by a person who had custody or control of the thing immediately before it was so seized or by someone acting on behalf of such a person, the officer shall allow the person who made the request access to it under the supervision of a constable. (4) Subject to subsection (8) below if a request for a photograph or copy of any such thing is made to the officer in charge of the investigation by a person who had custody or control of the thing immediately before it was so seized, or by someone acting on behalf of such a person, the officer shall- (a) allow the person who made the request access to it under the supervision of a constable for the purpose of photographing or copying it ; or (b) A photograph or copy it, or cause it to be photographed o ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... sufficient for that purpose. (5) Nothing in this section affects any power of a court to make an order under section 1 of the Police (Property) Act, 1897. 23. In this Act - premises includes any place and, in particular, includes, - (a) any vehicle, vessel, aircraft or hovercraft; (b) any offshore installation; and (c) any tent or movable structure; and offshore installation has the meaning given to it by section 1 of the Mineral Workings (Offshore Installations) 1971 c.61. Act 1971. 70. It may thus be seen that the provisions relating to seizure in U.K. too do not refer to seizure of immovable property. The question of interpreting these provisions had come up in the case of William Cowan v. Sir Paul Condon, Metropolitan Police Service, [1999) EWCA (iv 203)] decided on 29-7-1999 in relation to seizure of a car, since under Section 23, quoted above, a vehicle is included in the definition of premises, `car' would be `premises'. It may be interesting to note how the Court of Appeal dealt with the issue. The Court held: In s.19(2) and (3) the constable is given a power to seize anything which is on the premises . In s.18(2) the constable is gi ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... Ghani-v-Jones (above). The preservation of evidence is in the interests of both the general public and an accused or suspected person. 71. Thus it may be seen that even an English Court has referred to impossibility of seizure of immovable property. The test applied was whether the property could be removed to a police station. 72. Judgments in Textile Traders Syndicate Ltd., Bulandshahr v. The State of U.P. and others, reported at AIR 1960 Allahabad 405 (V 47 C 99), M/s.Purbanchal Road Service, Gauhati v. The State, Opposite Party, reported at 1991 CRI.L.J.2798, Ms. Swaran Sabharwal, v. Commissioner of Police, reported at 1988 CRI.L.J.241 and M/s.Malnad Construction Co., Shimoga, and others, v. State of Karnataka and others, reported at 1994 CRI.L.J.645 dealing with service of bank accounts need not be dealt with in view of Judgment in Tapas Neogy. 73. At the cost of repetition we may point out that when there is adequate provision for attachment of ill- gotten wealth out of certain offences with sufficient safeguard of judicial ig control, which the Legislature could extend to other species of offences should it so desire, we cannot opt for interpreting Section 10 ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... uards. We may also remind ourselves of the role of the Courts in as far as criminal justice is concerned - they are to stand between the mighty State and the liberty of the citizen and cannot align themselves with prosecuting or investigating agencies when the State itself, with power to legislate, does not do so. To borrow the words of Lord Atkin in his famous dissent in Liversidge v. Anderson, [Law Reports citation: (1942) A.C. 206] we cannot be more executive minded than the executive. 76. We may add that a Bank account, or a Demat account reflecting the shares of the Limited Company listed on the Stock Exchange, may similarly be required to be dealt with during investigation, extract whereof may be available from the Bank, and may provide circumstances which would create suspicion of commission of offence. But we would repeat that it is difficult to conceive that an immvovable property could be found in circumstances creating ig suspicion of commission of offence to warrant its seizure. The situation at a place of offence may provide evidence of commission of crime, such as finding incriminating articles, dead body, blood stained clothes, weapons, etc.. This has to be distin ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... crime before the Criminal Court because of the different standards of proof. 79. There have been several civil wrongs which have been treated as crimes also, for which both civil and criminal remedies are available. Libel or slander is punishable as offence of defamation. Assault, battery and mayhem are punishable as offences against human body. Misappropriation, cheating or forgery could be dealt with under criminal law, as also civil wrongs of conversion or trover. This does not mean that Civil remedies are abolished or cannot be resorted to, or can be branded as inefficacious. 80. Since a reference to change in times has been made, it may be useful to recall that the proportion of convictions in Criminal Courts in India is miniscule as compared to number of charge sheets filed. There is a growing tendency to add to the burden of already inadequate police force. Without augmenting their strength and without enhancing their skills to deal with the new type of work that is passed on to them, there would be even more failures. The frustration of a citizen, who is led to believe that police will take care of his woes in respect of wrongs to private property, would be greater ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... NO. Q.(c) Which of the above two judgments lay down correct law in respect of the powers of a police officer to seize any immoveable property under Section 102 of the Code of Criminal Procedure? Ans. The judgment in Kishore Shankar Signapurkar v. State of Maharashtra (supra), and not that in M/s. Bombay Science Research Education Institute v. State of Maharashtra (supra) lays down the correct law and the judgment of the Supreme Court in State of Maharashtra v. Tapas D. Neogy (supra) has not been correctly interpreted in M/s. Bombay Science Research Education Institute v. State of Maharashtra (supra). This question is, therefore, answered accordingly. Q.(d) Whether the law laid down by the Supreme Court in case of State of Maharashtra v. Tapas D. Neogy (1999) 7 SCC 685 is restricted to seizure of bank accounts only or it can be extended to immoveable property also, as interpreted by the Division Bench in the case of M/s. Bombay Science and Research Education Institute v. The State of Maharashtra Ors. 2008 All M.R. (Cri.) 2133? Ans. The law laid down by the Supreme Court in State of Maharashtra v. Tapas D. Neogy (supra) is restricted to seizure of bank account a ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
