Sunday, February 5, 2023
154,225FansLike
654,155FollowersFollow
0SubscribersSubscribe
spot_img
Home Constitutional News Supreme Court ‘Any property’ u/Sec102 CrPC does not include immovable property: SC

‘Any property’ u/Sec102 CrPC does not include immovable property: SC

0
Want create site? Find Free WordPress Themes and plugins.

A CJI-led three judge bench of the Supreme Court clarified in a batch of appeals on Tuesday that Sec 102 of the Code of Criminal Procedure does not empower a police officer to seize immovable property.

Also comprising Justices Deepak Gupta and Sanjiv Khanna, the bench, in the Reference made from a Division Bench of the apex court in Nevada Properties v State of Maharashtra, held that seizure implies actual possession of the property which was not conceivable in case of immovable property.

Court pointed out that section 102 deals with properties alleged or suspected to have been stolen, and an immovable property cannot be stolen. The relevant clause is produced verbatim below:

S.102 Power of police officer to seize certain property.- (1) Any police officer may 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 offence.

Court pointed out that the Section is a part of the provisions concerning investigation undertaken by the police officer.

Immovable property can be attached or sealed, and that power has been explicitly granted to the Criminal Courts under Sections 451 to 459, and not to police officers.

Court said, “The police officer is an investigator and not an adjudicator or a decision maker.” Police can however seize title deeds of an immovable property and other documents if those are suspected to be stolen. Disputes and matters relating to the physical and legal possession and title of the property must be adjudicated upon by a Civil Court.

While concurring with the judgment laid down by Justice Khanna, some additional observations were made by Justice Deepak Gupta in a separate opinion. He pointed out, “it is a well settled principle of statutory interpretation that when   construing the words of a statute, they must be read in a manner in which they fit into the section and in the context of the purpose sought to be achieved by that particular provision of law… Theft can take place only of movable property and not of immovable property. In my view, the word ‘seized’ has been used in the sense of taking actual physical custody of the property…  if a police officer is given the power to seize immovable property it may lead to an absolutely chaotic situation.”

He further observed, “Sub­section 3 of Section 102 provides that where it is difficult to conveniently   transport the property to the court or there is difficulty in securing proper accommodation for the custody of the property, then the property can be given to any person on his executing a bond.  This per se indicates that the property must be capable of production in court and also be capable of being kept inside some accommodation.  This obviously cannot be done with immovable property.”

–India Legal Bureau

Did you find apk for android? You can find new Free Android Games and apps.