Section 102 limits police seizure powers and cannot support blanket bank account restraints or onerous return conditions.

Section 102 of the Code of Criminal Procedure permits seizure of property suspected to be connected with an offence, but does not authorise police to issue blanket prohibitory directions to banks restraining operation of accounts. The article also notes that a return condition requiring petitioners to report the manner and quantity of use of seized building materials was excessive once the materials were released, so the reporting obligation was shifted to the Board. Refusal to return demand drafts linked to alleged fraudulent transactions was upheld because the investigation was continuing and the order was based on relevant considerations.

---

---

Issues: (i) Whether, under Section 102 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973, the police had power to issue prohibitory orders restraining banks from permitting operation of the petitioners' accounts; (ii) Whether Condition No. 4 imposed for return of the seized building materials required modification; (iii) Whether the refusal to return the seized demand drafts called for interference in revision.

Issue (i): Whether, under Section 102 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973, the police had power to issue prohibitory orders restraining banks from permitting operation of the petitioners' accounts.

Analysis: Section 102 authorises seizure of property suspected to be connected with an offence and requires reporting of such seizure to the Magistrate. The power is directed to actual seizure and custody of property. A prohibitory direction to a bank preventing operation of an account is not the same as seizure, and such an order is not covered by Section 102. The police may seize property falling within the section, including property in a bank where legally permissible, but cannot issue a blanket direction restraining account operations.

Conclusion: The prohibitory orders issued to the banks were without authority under Section 102 and were liable to be withdrawn.

Issue (ii): Whether Condition No. 4 imposed for return of the seized building materials required modification.

Analysis: Condition No. 4 required both the petitioners and the Karnataka Housing Board to report to the police the manner, method and quantity in which the articles were used in construction. Once the materials were handed over, the petitioners would have no control over their use and could not realistically furnish such a report. The condition was therefore excessive so far as it applied to the petitioners.

Conclusion: Condition No. 4 was modified so that the reporting obligation rested only on the Board and not on the petitioners.

Issue (iii): Whether the refusal to return the seized demand drafts called for interference in revision.

Analysis: The investigation was still in progress, the allegations involved serious offences and substantial advances, and the demand drafts were linked to the alleged fraudulent transactions. In these circumstances, the order declining return of the drafts was a discretionary order made on relevant considerations. Revisional interference was not warranted at that stage.

Conclusion: The refusal to return the demand drafts was upheld.

Final Conclusion: The revision succeeded only to the extent of striking down the banks' prohibitory restraints and modifying the reporting condition on return of materials; the order refusing return of the demand drafts remained undisturbed.

Ratio Decidendi: Section 102 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 empowers seizure of property suspected to be connected with an offence, but does not authorise police to issue prohibitory directions to banks restraining operation of accounts.

---