Sudhir Vasant Karnataki Vs  State of Maharashtra

Case Analysis of Sudhir Vasant Karnataki vs State of Maharashtra

• FACTS : 

The Criminal Procedure Code, 1973 under section 102 gives police the authority to seize any property which has been suspected of being involved in a crime or commission of a crime. The same must be reported to the magistrate and the officer in charge. The facts of the case revolve around the interpretation of the term “certain property” under section 102 The Criminal Procedure Code, 1973. The Bombay High court while dealing with the petitions faced divisive opinions from different judgements on whether section 102 of the said Act included immovable property within its ambit or not, that is, whether police officers possess the authority to seize moveable properties under section 102 of the Criminal Procedure Code. The conflict was between the cases, Kishore Shankar Signapurkar vs State of Maharashtra & Ors which held that under section 102 of CrPC immoveable property cannot be seized and M/s. Bombay Science & Research Education Institute held that immoveable property can be seized. Due to the divisive opinions of the judgements, viz., Kishore Signapurkar vs State of Maharashtra & Ors and the case of M/s. Bombay Science & Research , the bench referred the same to a larger bench for a decision. 

• ISSUES INVOLVED : 

1. Whether section 102(1) of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 intends to include “immoveable property” within the ambit of “any property” ?

2. Whether a police officer has the right to seize the immoveable property found under the suspicion of a crime?

3. Which of the two above-mentioned judgements lay down the correct interpretation of section 102 of CrPC regarding the power to seize immoveable property?

4. Whether in the case of State of Maharashtra vs. Tapas D. Neogy, the Supreme Court intended to restrict the law to bank accounts only or it also includes immovable property?

• LAWS INVOLVED :

The present case has referred to several laws and provisions 

• Criminal Procedure Code, 1973:

1. Section 102 : deals with the power to seize certain property by the police officers which is suspected to be involved in a crime. The case revolved around this section with respect to the interpretation of the term “any property”. 

Further, some of the sections referred to by the parties to support its contention or were referred to by the Court in the judgement of the present case are as follows : 

1. Section 51 and 52 : These sections deal with the authority to search an arrested individual and seize offensive weapons.

2. Section 83 : The attachment of an absconding person’s property is covered in this section.

3. Section 105 : deals with the burden of proof that lies on the accused in cases falling under the General Exceptions of the Penal Code.

4. Section 145 – 146 : covers the process in cases when a dispute involving land or water is likely to result in a breach of peace as well as the authority to attach the subject of dispute.

5. Section 451 – 459 : deals with the process for custody and disposal of any property.

• Civil Procedure Code

1. Rules 43, 51 and 54 of Order XXI : deals with the attachment of moveable properties, negotiable instruments as well as immoveable properties.

• Narcotics Drugs and Psychotropic Substances Act, 1985.

1. Section 68-C to 68-F : deals with the processes related to illegally acquired property. 

• Indian Penal Code, 1860.

1. Section 22 : defines the term moveable property as being any physical property which are not connected or fastened to the earth or to anything else which is attached to the earth. 

• ARGUMENT OF PETITIONERS : 

The Petitioners contend that section 102 of the CrPC deals with moveable property and does not include immoveable properties under the term “any property”. The reason for the same being that the Code uses the word “attachment” with respect to immoveable properties and not “seize”. Further the section also used the word “found” and that an immoveable property cannot be “found” therefore the section should apply to moveable property only. It also not possible to produce immoveable properties as required by the section. The petitioners further contended that section 456 of CrPC deals with immoveable property however it does not state of its prior seizure. Further as per the various other provisions of the criminal Procedure Code it can be interpreted that the power of attaching an immoveable property is with the Court or Magistrate and not with the police as stated under section 102 of the Act. 

• ARGUMENT OF RESPONDENTS :

The respondent contended that the term “any property” in the section 102 CrPC should be given its usual meaning and should not be restricted to only moveable properties, as the words of the section are clear and plain. There should not be a restrictive interpretation of the term, the Code has used words “moveable” or “immoveable” if it intended to make any distinction. The respondent further contended that seizure by the police officer is needed before the Magistrate or Court could invoke the of the property effectively. Further, the inability to produce immoveable properties cannot be a reason to exclude the same from the ambit of section 102, as the same can be produced with the help of documents and that a narrow meaning would affect the investigation processes. 

• ANALYSIS : 

Any interpretation of procedural laws by the Court must be such that there is reduction of corruption and mischiefs in the public sphere as well as keep the power of the police within its limits, further that no innocent person suffers through such interpretation. The legislature provides for the freezing/attachment of properties  in certain provisions of law like 68-F of the NDPS Act or Criminal Law (Amendment) Act separately, therefore providing for seizure of all kinds of properties under Section 102 would be highly improbable. 

Further, it must be noted that from Rules 43, 51 and 54 in Order XXI of Civil Procedure Code that the mode of attaching moveable properties or negotiable instruments must be by seizure where as for immoveable property must be by a prohibitory order. Section 83 of the CrPC does not use the word “seizure” in respect of immoveable properties. Therefore, the contention that the term seizure is used with respect to moveable properties is not baseless. Further, it must also be kept in mind that the legislature has used the word “immoveable” in situations where it wanted to deal with immoveable properties. 

Section 102 of the CrPC deals with such properties which are suspected to involved in a crime or is stolen, it must be kept in mind that an immoveable property cannot be stolen and that is highly unlikely that suspicion of commission of an offence can stem from an immoveable property. Seizure of an immoveable property on the mere suspicion of the property being a result of a crime is an abuse of the provision, therefore including immoveable property within the ambit of section 102 of the CrPC would amount to using the provision for something for which it is not intended to be used for. 

Lastly, the power of seizure under Section 102 applies only to police officers and the Courts still have the power to deal with “ill gotten property”  under the Criminal Law (Amendment) Ordinance and other provisions of law, therefore the contention that a narrow interpretation of the term “any property” would make Courts powerless is also misleading and incorrect. The Courts can also never be completely ignorant of the chances of abuse of power by the state authorities. Therefore, from the above it can be interpreted that section 102 does not extend to immovable properties.

• CONCLUSION:

Thus, the  Hon’ble Court after considering all the points argued and various case laws and provisions came to the conclusion that : 

As regards the 1st issue, that is whether “any property” would include immoveable property under section 102 of the CrPC, the Hon’ble Court came to the conclusion that section 102 would not include immoveable properties under the expression “any property”, as an immoveable property creating suspicion of an offence is not conceivable. 

As regards issue 2 that is whether police officers shall have the authority to seize immoveable properties, the Hon’ble Court came to the conclusion that due to the aforesaid reason as stated in issue 1 the police officers shall not have any authority to take control of any property which is immoveable in nature. 

As regards issue 3 that is which judgement among Kishore Signapurkar vs State of Maharashtra & Ors and the case of M/s. Bombay Science & Research had the correct law laid down, the Hon’ble Court came to the conclusion that the law was correctly laid down in the case of Kishore Shankar Signapurkar versus State of Maharashtra.

Lastly, as regards issue 4 that is whether in the case of Tapas D. Neogy the law was laid down only for seizure of bank accounts or extends to immoveable properties, the Hon’ble court held that the law laid down by the Apex Court in the case of State of Maharashtra vs Tapas D. Neogy, does not extend to immoveable properties and are restricted to seizure of bank accounts only. 

Therefore, in this case, the Hon’ble Court interpreted the scope of Section 102 of the CrPC by bringing solving the conflict between the two cases, thereby protecting the rights of individuals and preventing the same from chances of abuse.