2024 Supreme(SC) 454

SUPREME COURT OF INDIA
PAMIDIGHANTAM SRI NARASIMHA, ARAVIND KUMAR, JJ.
Shento Varghese – Appellant
Versus
Julfikar Husen and Others – Respondents
Criminal Appeal Nos. 2531-2532 of 2024, Special Leave Petition (Crl.) Nos. 10504-10505 of 2023
Decided On : 13-05-2024

IMPORTANT POINTS
(1) De-freezing of Bank accounts – Validity of power exercised under Section 102(1) Cr.P.C. is not dependent on compliance with duty prescribed on police officer under Section 102(3) Cr.P.C. – Validity of exercise of power under Section 102(1) Cr.P.C. can be questioned either on jurisdictional grounds or on merits of matter.
(2) De-freezing of Bank accounts – Merely because non-reporting of seizure forthwith by police officer to jurisdictional court would not vitiate seizure order, it would not mean that there would be no consequence whatsoever as regards police officer upon whom law has enjoined a duty to act in a certain way since there is obligation cast on officer to report seizure forthwith.
(3) Act of seizure would not get vitiated by virtue of delay in reporting of seizure forthwith by police officer to jurisdictional court.

Headnote:

(A) Criminal Procedure Code, 1973 – Sections 102(3), 457 and 459 – De-freezing of Bank accounts – Validity of power exercised under Section 102(1) Cr.P.C. is not dependent on compliance with duty prescribed on police officer under Section 102(3) Cr.P.C. – Validity of exercise of power under Section 102(1) Cr.P.C. can be questioned either on jurisdictional grounds or on merits of matter – Pre-requisite for exercising powers under Section 102(1) is existence of a direct link between tainted property and alleged offence – It is essential that properties sought to be seized under Section 102(1) of Cr.P.C. must have direct or close link with commission of offence in question – Obligation to report seizure to Magistrate is neither a jurisdictional pre-requisite for exercising power to seize nor is exercise of such power made subject to compliance with reporting obligation – Order of seizure, for it to take effect and have legal force, is subjected to a further statutory requirement of seizure order being confirmed by order of Court – It is only upon passing of confirmation order within stipulated period does the order of seizure take effect – Until then, it remains an order in form but without having any legal force – Delay in reporting seizure to Magistrate may, subject to proof of prejudice, at best, dent veracity of prosecution case vis-à-vis date, time and occasion for seizure of property – Illegalities in investigation (including illegality in search and seizures) is no ground for setting aside investigation in toto. (Paras 13, 14, 15 and 16)

(B) Criminal Procedure Code, 1973 – Sections 102(3), 457 and 459 – De-freezing of Bank accounts – Merely because non-reporting of seizure forthwith by police officer to jurisdictional court would not vitiate seizure order, it would not mean that there would be no consequence whatsoever as regards police officer upon whom law has enjoined a duty to act in a certain way since there is obligation cast on officer to report seizure forthwith – Expression ‘forthwith’ must receive a reasonable construction and in giving such construction, regard must be had to nature of act or thing to be performed and prevailing circumstances of case – When it is not mandate of law that the act should be done within a fixed time, it would mean that act must be done within a reasonable time – It all depends upon circumstances that may unfold in a given case and there cannot be a strait-jacket formula prescribed in this regard – Interpretation of word ‘forthwith’ would depend upon terrain in which it travels and would take its colour depending upon prevailing circumstances which can be variable – If Magistrate finds that delay has been properly explained, it would leave the matter at that – However, if it finds that there is no reasonable explanation for delay or that official has acted with deliberate disregard/ wanton negligence, then it may direct for appropriate departmental action to be initiated against such erring official – However, act of seizure would not get vitiated by virtue of such delay. (Paras 18, 19, 22, 23 and 24)

(D) Words and Phrases – Expression ‘forthwith’ s synonymous with word immediately which means with all reasonable quickness – When a statute requires something to be done ‘forthwith’ or ‘immediately’ or even ‘instantly’, it should probably be understood as allowing a reasonable time for doing it – Expression ‘forthwith’ means ‘as soon as may be’, ‘with reasonable speed and expedition’, ‘with a sense of urgency’ and ‘without any unnecessary delay’ – It would mean as soon as possible, judged in context of object sought to be achieved or accomplished. (Paras 20 and 22)

(C) Criminal Procedure Code, 1973 – Sections 154, 157 and 482 – Quashing of FIR – Delay in registration of FIR is no ground for quashing of FIR itself – As a corollary that if delay in registration of FIR is no ground to quash FIR, then delay in forwarding such FIR to Magistrate can also afford no ground for nullification of FIR – Unless serious prejudice is demonstrated to have been suffered as against accused, mere delay in sending FIR to Magistrate by itself will not have any deteriorating effect on case of prosecution – If prejudice is demonstrated and prosecution fails to explain delay, then, at best, effect of such delay would only be to render date and time of lodging FIR suspect and nothing more.(Para 16)

Facts of the case:

Present appeals have been preferred at instance of the first informant in Crime No.318 of 2022. By impugned order dated 09.08.2023, passed in Crl. O.P. Nos.14029 & 14031 of 2023 and Crl. M.P. Nos.8658 of 2023, High Court of Madras has allowed the claim of Respondents-accused for de-freezing of their bank accounts. High Court has ordered for de-freezing on the specific ground that there was delay on part of the police in reporting the seizure to the jurisdictional Magistrate.

Does delayed reporting of seizure to Magistrate vitiate seizure order altogether? That is the question which needs to be answered in these appeals.

Findings of Court:

Respondents would have to undertake to deposit amount within four weeks from the date on which Court passes an order of conviction. Bond executed would stand discharged if accused persons are acquitted at the end of trial.

Result : Appeals allowed in part.