STATE OF MAHARASHTRA versus TAPAS D. NEOGY

Citation: [1999] SUPP. 2 S.C.R. 609 · Decided: 16-09-1999 · Supreme Court of India · Bench: G.B. PATTANAIK · Disposal: Appeal(s) allowed

Judgment (excerpt)

STATE OF MAHARASHTRA 
A 
v. 
TAPAS D. NEOGY 
SEPTEMBER 16, 1999 
[G.B. PATTANAIK AND N. SANTOSH HEGDE, JJ.] 
B 
Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 : 
Section 102-Police officer-Power to seize property-'Property'-
Include Bank account and therefore capable of being seized-Applicability C 
of Section 102-Necessary conditions for. 
Accused-Commission of offences-Investigation-Seizure by Police 
Officer-Instructions by Investigating Officer prohibiting operation of Bank 
account-Held legal. 
Words & Phrases: 
'Property '-Meaning of-Section 102-Code of Criminal Procedure, 
1973. 
D 
Respondent was working as an Architect and Town Planner in the E 
Department of Town Planning of the Union Territory of Daman and Diu. 
While posted at Daman, Respondent, along with three other persons, was 
alleged to have changed the zones in the original approved plan of Daman. 
On the basis of the same forged map respondent-accused issued false 
certificates indicating that the land fell within the industrial zone. As a p 
result of this land prices shot up causing pecuniary advantage to the 
landowners. Therefore, F.I.R. was lodged against the accused persons under 
Sections 120-B, 467,468,471 and 420 I.P.C. and Section 13(2) read with 
Section 13(l)(d) of the Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988. During 
investigation several incriminating documents were seized from the pretnises 
of th~ respondent. Two lockers one jointly held by mother. of respondent and G 
his brother and another by mother and sister of the respondent were sealed. 
The Investigating Officer also issued instructions to Managers of different 
Banks not to allow the accounts to be operated upon. On an application filed 
by the mother of respondent under Section 457 of the Code of Criminal 
Procedure, 1973, the Magistrate allowed her to operate the locker but H 
609 
610 
SUPREME COURT REPORTS [1999] SUPP. 2 S.C.R. 
A refused to allow operation of the Bank account. On appeal, the High Court 
held that the bank account of an accused or any relation of the accused 
cannot be held to be 'property' within the meaning of Section 102 of the Code 
of Criminal Procedure and, therefore, the Investigating Officer had no powers 
either to seize the said bank account or to issue any order prohibiting the 
B operation of the bank account. 
c 
In State's appeal to this Court on the question whether a Police Officer, 
investigating into an offence can issue prohibitory order in respect of the 
bank account of the accused in exercise of powers under Section 102 of the 
Criminal Procedure Code : 
Allowing the appeal, the Court 
HELD: 1. The High Court committed error in holding that the Police 
Officer could not have seized the bank account or could not have issued any 
direction to the bank officer, prohibiting the account of the accused from 
D being operated upon. (620-E) 
2. A plain reading of sub-section (1) of Section 102 of the Code of 
Criminal Procedure, 1973 indicates that the Police Officer has the power 
to seize any property which may be found under circumstances creating 
suspicion of the commission of any offence. The legislature having used the 
E expression "any property" and "any offence" have made the applicability of 
the provisions wide enough to cover offences created under any Act. But the 
two pre-conditions for applicability of Section 102(1) are that it must be 
'property' and secondty, in respect of the said property there must be suspicion 
of commission of any offence. [615-G-H] 
F 
3. There is no justification to give any narrow interpretation to the 
provisions of the Criminal Procedure Code. It is well known that corruption 
in public offices has become so rampant that it has become difficult to cope 
up with the same. Then again the time consumed by the Courts in concluding 
the trials is another factor which should be borne in mind in interpreting 
G the provisions of Section 102 of the Code and the underlying object engrafted 
therein, inasmuch as if there can be no order of seizure of the bank account 
of the accused then the entire money deposited in a bank which is ultimately 
held in the trial to be the outcome of the illegal gratification, could be 
withdrawn by the accused and the Courts would be powerless to get the said 
money which has any direct link with the commission of the offence committed 
H by the accused as a Public officer. The bank account of the accused or any 
-
-~ 
-
,,. 
-
STA TE OF MAHARASHTRA v. TAP AS D. NEOGY 
611 
of his relation

Excerpt shown. Read the full judgment & AI analysis in Lexace.