Page 1 of 4

IN THE HIGH COURT OF ORISSA AT CUTTACK

CRLMC No.4113 of 2016

M/s. Mahimananda Mishra

….

Petitioner

Mr. J. Pal, Advocate

-versus-

State of Odisha and others

…

Opposite Parties

Mr. J. Katikia, AGA

CORAM:

THE CHIEF JUSTICE

Order No.

ORDER

03.2.2023

05.

1. On the previous date i.e. on 20^th January 2023, the following

order had been passed:

“1. Mr. Jaydeep Pal, learned counsel for the Petitioner relies

on the judgments in State of Maharastra v. Tapas D Neogy

(1999) 7 SCC 685 and Swaran Sabharwal v. Commissioner

of Police 1990 (68) Company Cases 652 and urges that the

freezing of the Petitioner’s Bank accounts by the police is

contrary to Section 102 of Cr.P.C. and is unsustainable in

law.

2. Mr. J. Katikia, learned Additional Government Advocate

seeks time to place certain other judgments which according

to him hold against the Petitioner.

3. At his request, list on 3^rd February, 2023.”

2. Mr. J. Katikia, learned Additional Government Advocate refers

to the decision of the Allahabad High Court dated 18^th April, 2022

in Criminal Misc. Writ Petition No.11201 of 2021 (Amit Singh v.

State of U.P.) and in particularly to paras 13 and 18 of the said

judgment where it has been observed as under:

Page 2 of 4

“(13) sub section (3) of Section 102 Cr.P.C. provides that

every police officer acting under sub-section (1) Cr.P.C.

shall forthwith report the seizure to the Magistrate having

jurisdiction. The main thrust of learned counsel for the

petitioner is that since the police officer acting under sub-

section (1) Cr.P.C., who has seized the account has not

reported the concerned Magistrate about the seizure

forthwith, and thus seizure has become illegal. Sub-section

(3) of Section 102 Cr.P.C. further provides that where the

property seized is such that it cannot be conveniently

transported to the court or where there is difficulty in

securing the custody of the said 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. Therefore the

bank account which has been seized and is in the custody of

the bank is subject to the further orders of the court as to the

disposal of the same, therefore as per scheme of Code the

purpose of information being given to the Magistrate

concerned is to bring it to the knowledge of the Court but no

consequences thereof has been provided. However the

concerned person may move appropriate application for its

release etc. from the court. Knowing it well the petitioner

had also, after release from the Jail on bail, moved an

application before the concerned court to know as to under

which order the account has been seized, so that he may get

the same released through the court. Therefore once the

information in response to the aforesaid application has been

submitted to the concerned court, it is apparent that the

information has been furnished to the concerned court.

Therefore the seizure would not become illegal on this

ground.

xxx

xxx

xxx

(18) In view of above scheme of the Code the purpose of

information given to the Magistrate regarding seizure of

property by the Police Officer is merely to facilitate its

disposal in accordance with law during pendency of trial or

subsequent thereto. Therefore non reporting of the seizure

Page 3 of 4

forthwith, as provided under Section 102(3) Cr.P.C., shall

not ipso facto render the seizure illegal particularly as no

period is specified and it's consequences have not been

provided. Therefore when on an application moved by the

petitioner, the same has been informed, the petitioner may

move the concerned Magistrate for the custody of the

property i