SUPREME COURT OF INDIA
Uday Umesh Lalit, CJI., S. Ravindra Bhat, J.B. Pardiwala, JJ.
All India Transporters Welfare Association & Anr. – Appellants
Versus
Union of India & Ors. – Respondents
Writ Petition (Civil) No. 38 of 2022
Decided On : 26-09-2022
Seizure - Police Powers - The court dismissed a petition seeking a writ to direct the application of suggestions from a committee report in cases relating to seized properties by the police. The court emphasized the scope of Section 102 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, stating that properties not suspected of being linked to the investigated offense cannot be seized under this section.
Fact of the Case:
The petition sought a writ to direct the application of suggestions from a committee report in cases relating to seized properties by the police, citing inconvenience caused to transporters and customers due to prolonged custody of seized properties.
Finding of the Court:
The court dismissed the petition, stating that the grievance raised did not fall under the purview of Article 32 of the Constitution of India. It emphasized that any non-compliance with the requirements of Section 102 of the Code could be addressed through appropriate legal proceedings.
Issues: The main issue was the alleged non-compliance of the police with the requirements of Section 102 of the Code in seizing properties, causing inconvenience to transporters and their customers.
Ratio Decidendi: The court emphasized the scope of Section 102 of the Code, stating that properties not suspected of being linked to the investigated offense cannot be seized under this section. It also highlighted that grievances regarding non-compliance with the requirements of Section 102 could be addressed through appropriate legal proceedings.
Final Decision: The writ petition was dismissed, and pending applications, if any, were disposed of.
ORDER
1. This petition filed under Article 32 of the Constitution of India filed by All India Transporters Welfare Association seeks following principal relief:
'a. Issue a Writ/Order/Direction in the nature of mandamus directing the Respondents No.1, 2, 5 to 36 to apply the suggestions of Chapter V of the report given by the Committee formed by the Ld. Chief Justice of Delhi i.e. Annexure P-7 in all cases relating to the properties seized by the police and a copy of the final order passed by this Hon'ble Court may be forwarded to the Director Generals of Police of all the State Governments and the Union Territories and the Registrar General of all the High Courts of India for onward transmission to all subordinate courts of India to ensure its compliance.'
2. The grievance raised in this petition is that at times, certain acts are committed by the Police which are not clearly consistent with the mandate of Section 102 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 ('the Code' for short) and seized properties keep languishing in the custody of the Police for fairly long time causing great inconvenience to the transporters and their customers.
3. Reliance has been placed on a decision of this Court in M.T. Enrica Lexis & Another v. Doramma & Others, Civil Appeal No.4167 of 2012 dated 02.05.2012, and particularly paragraph 13 of the decision which was to the following effect:
'13. The police officer in course of investigation can seize any property under Section 102 if such property is alleged to be stolen or is suspected to be stolen or is the object of the crime under investigation or has direct link with the commission of offence for which the police officer is investigating into. A property not suspected of commission of the offence which is being investigated into by the police officer cannot be seized. Under Section 102 of the Code, the police officer can seize such property which is covered by Section 102(1) and no other.'
4. The scope of Section 102 of the Code has thus been dealt with by this Court and needs no further elaboration. If there be any individual case, wherever, according to the concerned person, there is non-compliance of the requirements of Section 102 of the Code, the concerned person will always be at liberty to file appropriate proceedings in a manner known to law.
5. The representation so made by any individual concerned person or entity shall appropriately be considered at the earliest in every given case.
6. The grievance raised in the petition is not something which must be dealt with in proceedings under Article 32 of the Constitution of India.
7. With these observations, the writ petition is dismissed.
8. Pending applications, if any, also stand disposed of.
AI
The main legal point established is that properties not suspected of being linked to the investigated offense cannot be seized under Section 102 of the Code of Criminal Procedure.
Seizure of property under Section 102 of the Cr.P.C. requires evidence of theft or crime; mere suspicion is insufficient.
The main legal point established in the judgment is that the power of seizure under Section 102 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 is limited to movable property and does not extend to immovable....
Sec. 102 of the Code of Criminal Procedure does not empower police officers to seize immovable property, and such actions are illegal and contrary to established legal principles.
The Magistrate has jurisdiction to order the return of seized property even if a police report has not been issued.
Right to property is still a constitutional right under Article 300-A of the Constitution of India though not a fundamental right and the deprivation of the right can only be in accordance with the p....
Court or the police would not be required to keep the article in safe custody and if the proper panchnama before handing over possession of article is prepared, that can be used in evidence instead o....
Login now and unlock free premium legal research
Login to SupremeToday AI and access free legal analysis, AI highlights, and smart tools.
Login
now!
India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!
Copyright © 2023 Vikas Info Solution Pvt Ltd. All Rights Reserved.