2024 (5) TMI 790 - SC - Indian Laws

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 ... Defreezing of bank accounts - Scope of the Expression 'Forthwith' - delay on part of the police in reporting the seizure to the jurisdictional Magistrate - HELD THAT:- In deciding whether the police officer has properly discharged his obligation under Section 102(3) Cr.P.C., the Magistrate would have to, firstly, examine whether the seizure was reported forthwith. In doing so, it ought to have regard to the interpretation of the expression, ‘forthwith’. If it finds that the report was not sent forthwith, then it must examine whether there is any explanation offered in support of the delay. If the Magistrate finds that the delay has been properly explained, it would leave the matter at that. However, if it finds that there is no reasonable explanation for the delay or that the official has acted with deliberate disregard/ wanton negligence, then it may direct for appropriate departmental action to be initiated against such erring official. It is again reiterated that the act of seizure would not get vitiated by virtue of such delay. The reasoning adopted by the High Court cannot be sustained - This takes to the consequential question, namely, whether at this distance of time, it is to be directed that freezing of the bank accounts afresh? The answer has to be in the negative, since undisputedly by virtue of the impugned order, the bank accounts of the respondents has been defreezed and resultantly, the Respondents would have operated the accounts and amount of Rs.19,83,036/- which had been frozen would have been withdrawn. The ends of justice would be met and the interest of prosecution would be served if the Respondents are called upon, forthwith, to execute a bond undertaking to deposit the amount (which has been thus far withdrawn from the seized bank accounts) before the jurisdictional Court in the event the Court were to return a finding of guilt against the accused persons. The appeals are 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.