The Supreme Court on Tuesday made clear that a police officer is not empowered to seize immovable property under Section 102 of the Code of Criminal Procedure.
Section 102 deals with the power of an investigating officer to seize any property suspected to be part of a crime. The question of law regarded by a three-judge Bench of Chief Justice Ranjan Gogoi, Justices Deepak Gupta and Sanjeev Khanna was whether landed property comes within the ambit of ‘property’ mentioned in the legal provision.
The Bench gave two concurring judgments. Justice Khanna, who wrote the main judgment, held that it would “not be proper to hold that Section 102 of the Code empowers a police officer to seize immovable property, land, plots, residential houses, streets or similar properties”.
“Given the nature of criminal litigation, seizure of an immovable property by the police officer in the form of an attachment and dispossession would not facilitate investigation to collect evidence to be produced during inquiry and trial,” Justice Khanna observed.
Justice Gupta said seizure of land by a police officer during a probe would lead to an “absolutely chaotic situation”.
Justice Khanna explained that Section 102 of the Code was not a general provision which authorised a police officer to seize immovable property as if to “produce” it later in a criminal court during trial.
However, this bar on seizure of property would not prohibit a police officer from seizing documents/ papers of title relating to an immovable property, as it is distinct and different from seizure of immovable property.
The court also drew a distinction between the action of seizure and attachment of property.
“Immovable property can be attached and also locked/sealed. It could be argued that the word ‘seize’ would include the action of attachment and sealing. Seizure of immovable property in law requires dispossession of the person in occupation/possession of the immovable property, unless there are no claimants, which would be rare. Language of Section 102 of the Code does not support the interpretation that the police officer has the power to dispossess a person in occupation and take possession of an immovable property in order to seize it,” Justice Khanna wrote.
The court was hearing a reference on the point of law which was raised in an appeal filed by Nevada Properties Limited against the State of Maharashtra.
The Bombay High Court had, in November 2010, held that a police officer investigating a criminal case cannot take custody of and seize an immovable property under suspicion.
