Delayed reporting of seizure does not invalidate a lawful seizure; "forthwith" means prompt reporting within a reasonable time.

Delayed reporting of a seizure to the Magistrate under Section 102(3) of the Code of Criminal Procedure does not by itself invalidate a lawful seizure under Section 102(1), because reporting is a separate procedural and supervisory requirement, not a jurisdictional condition precedent. "Forthwith" was construed to mean prompt reporting with reasonable speed in the circumstances, so the Magistrate must consider whether any delay is reasonably explained. An unexplained delay may invite evidentiary scrutiny or administrative action, but it does not automatically vitiate the seizure.

---

---

Issues: (i) Whether delay in reporting a seizure to the Magistrate under Section 102(3) of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 vitiates the seizure order; (ii) What is the meaning of the expression "forthwith" in Section 102(3) and what consequence follows from delayed reporting.

Issue (i): Whether delay in reporting a seizure to the Magistrate under Section 102(3) of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 vitiates the seizure order.

Analysis: The reporting duty under Section 102(3) is a procedural obligation attached to the exercise of the power of seizure under Section 102(1), but it is not a jurisdictional precondition to the validity of the seizure itself. The legislative history, the scheme of disposal of property under Sections 457 and 459, and the contrast with provisions such as Section 105E show that the power to seize is complete on lawful exercise under Section 102(1), while reporting serves a separate administrative and supervisory purpose. Delay in reporting may bear on the evidentiary value of the seizure or invite explanation and scrutiny, but it does not nullify the seizure order merely because the report was not sent forthwith.

Conclusion: Delayed reporting does not vitiate the seizure order.

Issue (ii): What is the meaning of the expression "forthwith" in Section 102(3) and what consequence follows from delayed reporting.

Analysis: The expression "forthwith" was construed to mean as soon as may be, with reasonable speed and expedition, and within a reasonable time in the circumstances. The Magistrate must therefore examine whether reporting was prompt in the factual context and, if delay is shown, whether a reasonable explanation exists. Where delay is unexplained or shows deliberate disregard or wanton negligence, appropriate departmental action may follow. The consequence is not invalidation of the seizure, but possible administrative or evidentiary consequences depending on the facts proved.

Conclusion: "Forthwith" means prompt reporting within a reasonable time, and delay may attract explanatory or departmental consequences but not automatic invalidation of the seizure.

Final Conclusion: The appeals succeeded to the extent that the order of de-freezing could not be sustained on the sole ground of delayed reporting, and the legal position was settled by overruling the contrary line of authority.

Ratio Decidendi: Non-reporting or delayed reporting of seizure to the Magistrate under Section 102(3) of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 is not a condition precedent to the validity of seizure under Section 102(1); it is a separate procedural obligation whose breach does not by itself vitiate the seizure, though it may have evidentiary or administrative consequences.

---