https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=183178 Section 102(1) of the Code of Criminal Procedure does not authorise seizure of immovable property, because the statutory scheme, read with its reporting and custody provisions, supports a narrower construction of "any property" as property capable of seizure in the manner contemplated by the Code. The earlier Supreme Court ruling in State of Maharashtra v. Tapas D. Neogy is confined to bank accounts and cannot be extended by implication to immovable property. On that basis, the earlier Division Bench view was treated as correctly stating the law, while the later contrary view was rejected. en-us Mon, 29 Nov 2010 00:00:00 +0530 Mon, 21 Jul 2025 15:01:26 +0530 TaxTMI RSS Generator https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=183178 Section 102(1) of the Code of Criminal Procedure does not authorise seizure of immovable property, because the statutory scheme, read with its reporting and custody provisions, supports a narrower construction of "any property" as property capable of seizure in the manner contemplated by the Code. The earlier Supreme Court ruling in State of Maharashtra v. Tapas D. Neogy is confined to bank accounts and cannot be extended by implication to immovable property. On that basis, the earlier Division Bench view was treated as correctly stating the law, while the later contrary view was rejected. Case-Laws Indian Laws Mon, 29 Nov 2010 00:00:00 +0530 https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=183178