Immovable assets can’t be attached during probe: SC

Source: Hindustan Times dated 25.09.2019

The Supreme Court ruled on Tuesday that police or other law-enforcement agencies have no authority under the code of criminal procedure (CrPc) to seize any immovable property on the suspicion that it had been purchased or set up with the proceeds of an illegal transaction or criminal activity.

A bench led by Chief Justice of India Ranjan Gogoi held conferring such powers to police officers would have “serious consequences for the citizens.”

The bench said: “In case and if we allow the police officer to ‘seize’ immovable property on a mere ‘suspicion of the commission of any offence’, it would mean and imply giving a drastic and extreme power to dispossess etc. to the police officer on a mere conjecture and surmise, that is, on suspicion, which has hitherto not been exercised.”

The apex court upheld the Bombay high court ruling that immovable property cannot be seized by the police during the course of investigation.

According to Section 102 of the CrPC: “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 HC had interpreted the term immovable property under this section as houses, office or lands.

The SC said that although the section postulates seizure of property, it does not include immovable property.

“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. In the absence of the Legislature conferring this express or implied power under Section 102 of the Code to the police officer, we would hesitate and not hold that this power should be inferred and is implicit in the power to effect seizure,” held the court.

The law, however, does not bar or prohibit the police officer from seizing documents/papers of title relating to immovable property, as it is distinct and different from seizure of immovable property. “Disputes and matters relating to the physical and legal possession and title of the property must be adjudicated upon by a Civil Court,” held the court.