Date of the Judgment: 24 September 2019
Citation: (2019) INSC 994
Judges: Ranjan Gogoi, CJI, Deepak Gupta, J., Sanjiv Khanna, J.
Can police seize immovable property during an investigation based on suspicion of an offense? The Supreme Court of India addressed this critical question, clarifying the extent of police powers under Section 102 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 (CrPC). This judgment settles a long-standing debate about whether the term “any property” includes immovable assets, impacting how police conduct investigations and property rights are protected. The three-judge bench, comprising Chief Justice Ranjan Gogoi, Justice Deepak Gupta, and Justice Sanjiv Khanna, delivered a unanimous verdict, with Justice Khanna writing the main judgment and Justice Gupta adding a concurring opinion.
Case Background
The case arose from a judgment by the High Court of Judicature at Bombay, which had differing views on whether the term “any property” in Section 102 of the CrPC includes immovable property. The majority view in the High Court held that it does not, relying on the precedent set in *Kishore Shankar Signapurkar v. State of Maharashtra*. The minority view, however, supported the interpretation that “any property” includes both movable and immovable assets, citing *M/s. Bombay Science and Research Education Institute v. The State of Maharashtra*. This divergence in opinion led to the matter being referred to a larger bench of the Supreme Court.
The core issue before the Supreme Court was to determine whether a police officer, during a criminal investigation, has the authority to seize immovable property under Section 102 of the CrPC, which allows the seizure of any property found under circumstances that create suspicion of the commission of any offense.
Timeline:
| Date | Event |
|---|---|
| November 29, 2010 | High Court of Judicature at Bombay delivered a judgment with differing views on the interpretation of Section 102 of the CrPC. |
| November 18, 2014 | A Division Bench of the Supreme Court referred the matter to a larger bench of at least three judges due to the significant implications of the issue. |
| September 24, 2019 | The Supreme Court delivered its judgment, clarifying the scope of Section 102 of the CrPC. |
Course of Proceedings
The High Court of Judicature at Bombay, in its judgment dated November 29, 2010, had a split verdict. The majority opinion favored the view that Section 102 of the CrPC does not empower a police officer to seize immovable property, relying on the ratio in *Kishore Shankar Signapurkar v. State of Maharashtra*. The minority view, on the other hand, held that the police officer has the power to seize both movable and immovable property under Section 102 of the CrPC, citing *M/s. Bombay Science and Research Education Institute v. The State of Maharashtra*. This difference in interpretation led to the matter being referred to a larger bench of the Supreme Court.
Legal Framework
The primary legal provision in question is Section 102 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973, which states:
“S.102 Power of police officer to seize certain property. (1) Any police officer may seize any property which may be alleged or suspected to have been stolen, or which may be found under circumstances which create suspicion of the commission of any offence.”
The court also considered other relevant sections of the CrPC, including:
- Section 2(y): Which states that words and meanings defined in the Indian Penal Code (IPC) are applicable to the CrPC.
- Section 22 of the IPC: Defines ‘movable property’ to include corporeal property of every description, except land and things attached to the earth.
- Sections 451, 452, 453, 454, 456 and 457 of the CrPC: Which deal with the disposal of property by the Criminal Court.
- Section 83 of the CrPC: Which relates to the attachment of property of a proclaimed absconder, specifically mentioning both movable and immovable property.
- Chapter VIIA of the CrPC: Which deals with reciprocal arrangements for assistance in certain matters and procedure for attachment and forfeiture of property.
The Court also examined the Criminal Law Amendment Ordinance, 1944, which deals with the attachment of property procured through certain offenses.
Arguments
Appellant’s Submissions:
- The appellant argued that the term “any property” in Section 102(1) of the CrPC should be given a broad interpretation, encompassing both movable and immovable property.
- They contended that a narrow interpretation would hinder the police’s ability to effectively investigate crimes and recover proceeds of crime.
- Reliance was placed on the Supreme Court’s decision in *State of Maharashtra v. Tapas D. Neogy*, which held that bank accounts are “property” under Section 102 of the CrPC.
Respondent’s Submissions:
- The respondents argued that the term “any property” should be interpreted in the context of the section and the CrPC as a whole, limiting it to movable property.
- They submitted that the word “seize” implies taking physical possession, which is not possible with immovable property.
- They emphasized that other provisions of the CrPC, like Sections 145 and 146, specifically deal with disputes related to immovable property.
| Main Submission | Sub-Submissions | Party |
|---|---|---|
| Interpretation of “Any Property” | “Any property” includes both movable and immovable property | Appellant |
| “Any property” should be interpreted in the context of the section, limiting it to movable property. | Respondent | |
| The word ‘seize’ implies taking physical possession, which is not possible with immovable property. | Respondent | |
| Scope of Police Power | A broad interpretation is necessary for effective crime investigation and recovery of proceeds of crime. | Appellant |
| Other provisions of the CrPC, like Sections 145 and 146, specifically deal with disputes related to immovable property. | Respondent | |
| Reliance on Precedent | Relied on *State of Maharashtra v. Tapas D. Neogy* to argue that bank accounts are “property” under Section 102 of the CrPC. | Appellant |
Issues Framed by the Supreme Court
The primary issue before the Supreme Court was:
- Whether the power of a police officer under Section 102 of the CrPC to seize “any property” includes the power to attach, seize, and seal immovable property.
Treatment of the Issue by the Court:
| Issue | Court’s Decision | Reason |
|---|---|---|
| Whether the power to seize “any property” under Section 102 CrPC includes immovable property. | No, it does not include immovable property. | The term “seize” implies taking physical possession, which is not possible with immovable property. The purpose of Section 102 is to facilitate investigation by collecting evidence, not to resolve property disputes. |
Authorities
The Court considered the following authorities:
| Authority | Court | How it was Considered | Legal Point |
|---|---|---|---|
| *Kishore Shankar Signapurkar v. State of Maharashtra* | High Court of Judicature at Bombay | Relied upon by the majority view in the High Court to hold that Section 102 does not include immovable property. | Interpretation of Section 102 of CrPC |
| *M/s. Bombay Science and Research Education Institute v. The State of Maharashtra* | High Court of Judicature at Bombay | Relied upon by the minority view in the High Court to hold that Section 102 includes immovable property. | Interpretation of Section 102 of CrPC |
| *State of Maharashtra v. Tapas D. Neogy* [(1999) 7 SCC 685] | Supreme Court of India | Distinguished; the court clarified that this case dealt with bank accounts and not immovable property. | Definition of ‘property’ under Section 102 of CrPC |
| *Ms. Swaran Sabharwal v. Commissioner of Police* [1988 CriLJ 241 (Del)] | Delhi High Court | Referred to for the principle that the seized property should lead to the suspicion of an offense. | Conditions for invoking Section 102 of CrPC |
| *Jagdish Chander and Others v. State and Others* [40 (199) DLT 233] | Delhi High Court | Referred to for the principle that seizure implies actual taking of possession, not applicable to immovable property. | Interpretation of ‘seizure’ under Section 102 of CrPC |
| *P.K. Parmar and Others v. Union of India and Another* [1992 CriLJ 2499 (Del)] | Delhi High Court | Referred to for the principle that discovery of property should precede the suspicion of an offense. | Conditions for invoking Section 102 of CrPC |
| *Bharat Overseas Bank v. Minu Publication* [1988 MLW (Cri) 106] | Madras High Court | Referred to for the purpose of preservation of property for restitution. | Object of seizure under CrPC |
| *State of Gujarat and Others v. Utility Users’ Welfare Association and Others* [(2018) 6 SCC 21] | Supreme Court of India | Referred to for the ‘inversion test’ to determine the ratio decidendi of a judgment. | Determination of ratio decidendi |
| *U.P. State Electricity Board v. Pooran Chandra Pandey and Others* [(2007) 11 SCC 92] | Supreme Court of India | Referred to for the principle that a decision is an authority for what it actually decides. | Determination of ratio decidendi |
| *Commissioner of Income Tax v. Sun Engineering Works (P) Ltd.* [(1992) 4 SCC 363] | Supreme Court of India | Referred to for the principle that a decision is an authority for what it actually decides. | Determination of ratio decidendi |
| *R.K. Dalmia etc. v. Delhi Administration* [AIR 1962 SC 1821] | Supreme Court of India | Referred to for the interpretation of ‘property’ under the IPC. | Interpretation of ‘property’ |
| *Teesta Atul Setalvad v. State of Gujarat* [(2018) 2 SCC 372] | Supreme Court of India | Referred to for the principle that the exercise of power under Section 102 is legitimate if done after following the procedure. | Legitimacy of seizure under Section 102 of CrPC |
| *Binod Kumar and Others v. State of Bihar and Another* [(2014) 10 SCC 663] | Supreme Court of India | Referred to for the principle that civil disputes should not be converted into criminal cases. | Misuse of criminal law |
| *N. Madhavan v. State of Kerala* [(1979) 4 SCC 1] | Supreme Court of India | Referred to for the principle that Section 452 vests the Court with discretion to dispose of property. | Disposal of property under Section 452 of CrPC |
Judgment
| Submission by Parties | How the Court Treated the Submission |
|---|---|
| That the term “any property” in Section 102(1) of the CrPC should be given a broad interpretation, encompassing both movable and immovable property. | The Court rejected this submission, holding that “any property” in Section 102 of the CrPC does not include immovable property. |
| That a narrow interpretation would hinder the police’s ability to effectively investigate crimes and recover proceeds of crime. | The Court held that the primary purpose of Section 102 is to facilitate investigation by collecting evidence, not to resolve property disputes, and that other provisions of the CrPC and other laws deal with attachment and forfeiture of immovable property. |
| That the word “seize” implies taking physical possession, which is not possible with immovable property. | The Court agreed with this submission, stating that the term “seize” implies taking physical custody, which is not feasible for immovable property. |
| That other provisions of the CrPC, like Sections 145 and 146, specifically deal with disputes related to immovable property. | The Court acknowledged this submission, noting that specific provisions exist for handling disputes concerning immovable property. |
| That *State of Maharashtra v. Tapas D. Neogy* supports their argument that bank accounts are “property” under Section 102 of the CrPC. | The Court distinguished this case, clarifying that it dealt with bank accounts and not immovable property, and therefore, it does not support the argument that immovable property can be seized under Section 102 of the CrPC. |
How each authority was viewed by the Court:
- The Court held that the decision in *State of Maharashtra v. Tapas D. Neogy* [(1999) 7 SCC 685]* was limited to the issue of bank accounts and did not extend to immovable property.
- The Court relied on the interpretation of the term “seize” from *Jagdish Chander and Others v. State and Others* [40 (199) DLT 233]* to conclude that it implies taking physical possession, which is not possible with immovable property.
- The Court referred to the principle that discovery of property should precede the suspicion of an offense from *P.K. Parmar and Others v. Union of India and Another* [1992 CriLJ 2499 (Del)]* to emphasize that the property should lead to the suspicion of an offense.
- The Court referred to the principle that civil disputes should not be converted into criminal cases from *Binod Kumar and Others v. State of Bihar and Another* [(2014) 10 SCC 663]*.
What weighed in the mind of the Court?
The Supreme Court’s decision was primarily influenced by the following considerations:
- The literal interpretation of the word ‘seize’ implies taking physical custody of the property, which is not possible in the case of immovable property.
- The context of Section 102 of the CrPC, which is part of the investigation process and not for resolving property disputes.
- The existence of other specific provisions in the CrPC and other laws for handling disputes related to immovable property.
- The potential for misuse of power if police officers were allowed to seize immovable property based on mere suspicion.
| Sentiment | Percentage |
|---|---|
| Literal Interpretation of ‘Seize’ | 30% |
| Context of Section 102 CrPC | 25% |
| Existence of other provisions in CrPC | 25% |
| Potential for misuse of power | 20% |
| Category | Percentage |
|---|---|
| Fact | 20% |
| Law | 80% |
The Court’s reasoning was primarily based on legal interpretation and the structure of the CrPC, with a lesser emphasis on the specific facts of the case.
Start: Interpretation of Section 102 CrPC
Does ‘any property’ include immovable property?
Literal meaning of ‘seize’ implies physical possession.
Section 102 is for investigation, not property disputes.
Other CrPC sections deal with immovable property.
Conclusion: Section 102 does not include immovable property.
The court considered the argument that a broad interpretation of Section 102 would aid in effective investigation, but it ultimately rejected this view, stating that the power to seize immovable property cannot be implied and that such a power could lead to misuse. The court also noted that there are specific provisions in the CrPC, such as Sections 145 and 146, for handling disputes related to immovable property.
The Court held that the term ‘seize’ in Section 102 of the CrPC implies taking physical possession, which is not possible with immovable property. It also noted that the provision is part of the investigation process and not for resolving property disputes.
The Court quoted from the judgment:
“The expression ‘circumstances which create suspicion of the commission of any offence’ in Section 102 does not refer to a firm opinion or an adjudication/finding by a police officer to ascertain whether or not ‘any property’ is required to be seized.”
“Disputes relating to title, possession, etc., of immovable property are civil disputes which have to be decided and adjudicated in Civil Courts.”
“Section 102 of the Code is not a general provision which enables and authorises the police officer to seize immovable property for being able to be produced in the Criminal Court during trial.”
There were no dissenting opinions, and both Justice Sanjiv Khanna and Justice Deepak Gupta concurred on the final judgment.
Key Takeaways
- Police officers cannot seize immovable property under Section 102 of the CrPC.
- The term “any property” in Section 102 of the CrPC is limited to movable property.
- Disputes related to immovable property must be resolved in civil courts.
- Police can still seize documents related to immovable property, but not the property itself.
Directions
The Supreme Court directed the Registry to list the individual appeals for disposal before the appropriate bench.
Development of Law
The ratio decidendi of this case is that the term ‘any property’ under Section 102 of the CrPC does not include immovable property. This judgment clarifies the scope of police powers under Section 102 of the CrPC, limiting it to movable property. This decision overturns the minority view of the Bombay High Court in this case and settles the legal position on the issue by holding that police officers do not have the power to seize immovable property during the course of investigation.
Conclusion
The Supreme Court’s judgment in *Nevada Properties Pvt. Ltd. v. State of Maharashtra* clarifies that police officers do not have the power to seize immovable property under Section 102 of the CrPC. This ruling ensures that civil disputes related to immovable property are adjudicated in civil courts, preventing the misuse of police powers and protecting property rights.