Criminal seizure powers limited to property in actual custody; bank deposits and vague postal restraints were not sustained.

A criminal procedure commentary explains that a seizure order under Section 95 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1898 cannot extend to letters or parcels not yet received and therefore not in custody at the time of the order, and an open-ended reference to "etc." is too uncertain to define the items covered. It further states that Section 550 is confined to actual seizure of property capable of physical possession, so a bank deposit or debt relationship cannot be treated as seized property merely because payment is restrained. The wider postal restraint was limited to articles already in custody, and the bank order was quashed.

---

---

Issues: (i) Whether an order under Section 95 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1898 could validly extend to future letters and parcels and to unspecified items described only as "etc."; (ii) whether a police officer could treat a bank account balance or debt as "property" seized under Section 550 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1898.

Issue (i): Whether an order under Section 95 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1898 could validly extend to future letters and parcels and to unspecified items described only as "etc."

Analysis: The power under Section 95 was treated as co-extensive with the contemporaneous custody of postal or telegraph authorities and with things then in existence that were necessary for investigation. An order could not operate on articles not yet received and therefore not in custody at the date of the order. The use of the expression "etc." was also held to be uncertain and liable to misinterpretation because the order did not specifically identify the additional items intended to be covered.

Conclusion: The order under Section 95 was upheld only in relation to letters and parcels already received before the order, and it was quashed to the extent it purported to cover future articles or unspecified items; the challenge succeeded in part.

Issue (ii): Whether a police officer could treat a bank account balance or debt as "property" seized under Section 550 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1898.

Analysis: Section 550 was construed as referring to actual seizure of property capable of physical possession. A bank deposit was regarded as a debtor-creditor relation, not as identifiable money in the hands of the bank capable of physical seizure. An order prohibiting payment of the deposit was therefore not a seizure within the meaning of the section. The scope of the provision was distinguished from wider powers under Section 94 and from situations involving movable property capable of actual custody.

Conclusion: The order made under Section 550 against the bank could not be sustained and was quashed.

Final Conclusion: The application succeeded only to the extent that the police seizure order was struck down and the postal order was limited to letters and parcels already in custody, leaving no valid basis for a wider restraint.

Ratio Decidendi: A power to seize under the criminal procedure code is confined to property capable of actual possession, and an order affecting postal articles must be limited to articles existing and in custody at the time of the order with sufficient specificity.

---