Police delay in reporting seizure under Section 102(3) Cr.P.C. doesn't invalidate seizure if reasonably explained

The SC held that police delay in reporting seizure to the Magistrate under Section 102(3) Cr.P.C. does not vitiate the seizure itself. The Magistrate must examine if reporting was done "forthwith" and whether any delay was reasonably explained. If delay is unreasonable or shows deliberate disregard, departmental action may be initiated against the officer. The HC's reasoning was unsustainable. Since bank accounts were already defrozen and operated, refreezing was not directed. Instead, respondents must execute a bond to deposit withdrawn amounts if found guilty. Appeals allowed in part.

---

---

Issues Involved:
1. Implication of non-reporting of the seizure forthwith to the jurisdictional Magistrate u/s 102(3) Cr.P.C.
2. Whether delayed reporting of the seizure to the Magistrate vitiates the seizure order altogether.

Summary:

Issue 1: Implication of non-reporting of the seizure forthwith to the jurisdictional Magistrate u/s 102(3) Cr.P.C.

The Supreme Court examined the implications of non-reporting of the seizure to the jurisdictional Magistrate as mandated by Section 102(3) Cr.P.C. The Court noted that there is no authoritative pronouncement on this issue by the Supreme Court, and High Courts have divergent views. Some decisions hold that delayed reporting vitiates the seizure order, while others consider it a mere irregularity.

The Court analyzed the legislative history and comparative analysis of the Criminal Procedure Codes from 1882 to 2023, noting that the responsibility of the police officer to promptly inform the Magistrate about the seizure can be traced back to the 1882 Code. The 1978 amendment to the 1973 Code reintroduced the reporting obligations to address a lacuna in the law.

The Court concluded that the validity of the seizure order is not contingent on compliance with the reporting obligation. The power exercised under Section 102(1) Cr.P.C. is independent of the duty to report the seizure to the Magistrate. The Court emphasized that non-compliance with the reporting obligation does not vitiate the seizure order but may warrant departmental action against the erring official.

Issue 2: Whether delayed reporting of the seizure to the Magistrate vitiates the seizure order altogether.

The Supreme Court held that non-reporting of the seizure forthwith by the police officer to the jurisdictional Magistrate does not vitiate the seizure order. The Court clarified that the obligation to report the seizure is not a jurisdictional pre-requisite for exercising the power to seize. The Court drew analogies from other provisions of the Cr.P.C. and concluded that the effect of non-compliance with the reporting obligation should be determined based on the circumstances of each case.

The Court further elaborated on the meaning of the term "forthwith" as used in Section 102(3) Cr.P.C., interpreting it to mean "as soon as may be," "with reasonable speed and expedition," and "without any unnecessary delay." The Court stated that the Magistrate must examine whether the seizure was reported forthwith, considering any explanation for the delay. If the delay is unexplained or due to wanton negligence, appropriate departmental action may be directed against the erring official.

Conclusion:

The Supreme Court allowed the appeals in part, holding that the reasoning adopted by the High Court for de-freezing the bank accounts of the respondents-accused cannot be sustained. The Court directed that the respondents execute a bond undertaking to deposit the amount withdrawn from the seized bank accounts before the jurisdictional Court if found guilty. The bond would be discharged if the accused are acquitted at the end of the trial.

---