JUDGMENT

Deepak Gupta, J.

I have gone through the judgment delivered by my brother, Justice Sanjiv Khanna. I agree with the finding in the said judgment. However, in view of the nature of the issue involved, I intend to give a few additional reasons of my own.

2. Since brother Khanna in his judgment has given elaborate

reasons to hold that in the context of Section 102 the words ‘any

property’ would mean only movable property, I am not repeating the same for the sake of brevity.

3. The main issue involved is what is the meaning to be given to the word ‘property’ occurring in Section 102 of the Code of Criminal Procedure which reads as follows:

“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.

(2) Such police officer, if subordinate to the officer in charge of a police station, shall forthwith report the seizure to that officer.

(3) Every police officer acting under sub-section (1) shall forthwith report the seizure to the Magistrate having jurisdiction and where the property seized 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.”

Sub-section (1) of Section 102 empowers a police officer 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 offence. On behalf of the appellant it is urged that the word ‘any property’ is of very wide amplitude and will cover movable and immovable properties. This stand is also supported by the State of Maharashtra. On the other hand, it is contended by the respondents that in the context in which the word ‘any property’ is used in the Section, it has to be limited to movable property and cannot be extended to immovable property.

4. At first blush, the arguments on behalf of the appellant seem attractive because normally the words ‘any property’ would mean property of any kind or description. However, 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.

5. Sub-section (1) of Section 102 empowers a police officer to seize any property which may be alleged or suspected to have been stolen. 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. Sub-section 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 accom