Police exceeded authority in sealing company premises under CrPC; only movable, not immovable property. FEMA violations are civil offenses.

The court held that the police exceeded their authority by sealing the company's premises under Section 102 of the CrPC as it only pertains to movable property, not immovable property. The company possessed a valid license under FEMA, and any violations of FEMA are civil offenses falling outside police jurisdiction. The Chief Judicial Magistrate's order denying the company's request to unseal its premises was deemed legally flawed, leading to its quashing, and the directive for immediate unsealing by the Superintendent of Police.

---

---

Issues Involved:
1. Authority of police to seal premises under Section 102 of the CrPC.
2. Validity of the company's license under FEMA.
3. Legality of the order passed by the Chief Judicial Magistrate.

Detailed Analysis:

1. Authority of Police to Seal Premises under Section 102 of the CrPC:

The primary issue addressed is whether the police had the authority to seal the premises of the company under Section 102 of the CrPC. The court noted that Section 102 allows police to seize property suspected to be stolen or linked to the commission of an offense. However, the court emphasized that this provision applies to movable property, not immovable property like the office premises. The court referenced the Full Bench decision of the Bombay High Court in *Sudhir Vasant Karnataki Mohideen Mohammed Sheik Dawood vs. The State of Maharashtra*, which concluded that the term "any property" in Section 102 does not include immovable property. The Kerala High Court in *Kuriachan Chacko vs. State of Kerala* and the Supreme Court in *M.T. Enrica Lexie & Anr. vs. Doramma & Ors.* also supported this interpretation. Thus, the court held that the police exceeded their authority by sealing the company's premises, as immovable property cannot be seized under Section 102.

2. Validity of the Company's License under FEMA:

The court examined whether the company had a valid license under the Foreign Exchange Management Act (FEMA). It was undisputed that the company had a valid license issued by the Reserve Bank of India (RBI) to deal in foreign currency, which was valid until August 31, 2016. The court noted that the company's license was renewed in time and that the RBI had issued a letter confirming the continuation of the license until a decision on renewal was made. The court highlighted that violations under FEMA are civil offenses, not criminal, and the police have no authority to investigate or prosecute such violations. The authority to inspect and enforce compliance with FEMA lies with the RBI, not the police.

3. Legality of the Order Passed by the Chief Judicial Magistrate:

The court scrutinized the order of the Chief Judicial Magistrate, which denied the company's request to unseal its premises. The Magistrate's decision was based on the absence of proof of the license renewal and the potential destruction of evidence. However, the court found that the Magistrate failed to consider the valid license and the submissions made by the District Prosecution Officer, which acknowledged the license's validity. The court criticized the Magistrate for not applying judicial mind and for abdicating his duty by not allowing the company to operate its business under a valid license. Consequently, the court quashed the Magistrate's order and directed the Superintendent of Police to unseal the premises immediately.

Conclusion:

The court concluded that the police had no authority to seal the company's premises under Section 102 of the CrPC, as it only applies to movable property. The company had a valid license under FEMA, and any violations of FEMA are civil offenses outside the police's jurisdiction. The Chief Judicial Magistrate's order was found to be legally flawed, leading to its quashing and the directive to unseal the premises.

---