DR RAM MANOHAR LOHIA NATIONAL

LAW UNIVERSITY

BASICS OF CASE LAWS

FINAL DRAFT

SUBMITTED TO – SUBMITTED BY –
DR. KUMAR ASKAND PANDEY ADITYA CHAUBEY
ASSOCIATE PROFESSOR Enrollment No.- 210101012
(BASICS OF CASE LAWS) B.A. LL.B. (Hons.)
Dr. Ram Manohar Lohiya National Law University 1st Semester, Section ‘A’
 ACKNOWLEDGEMENT

I would like to extend my sincere and heartful gratitude to my Basics of Case Laws teacher Dr.

Kumar Askand Pandey Sir who has helped me in this endeavor and has always been very

cooperative and without his/her help, cooperation, guidance and encouragement, the project

couldn’t have been what it evolved to be. I extend my heartfelt thanks to my faculty for their

guidance and constant supervision, as well as, for providing me the necessary information

regarding the project. I am also thankful to my parents for their cooperation and encouragement.

At last, but not the least, gratitude to all my friends who helped me to complete this project

within a limited time frame.

ADITYA CHAUBEY
TITLE OF THE CASE:
Nevada Properties Private Limited through its directors v. State of Maharashtra and another1

BENCH STRENGHT:
Division Bench of 3 Judges

CJI Ranjan Gogoi, Justice Deepak Gupta and Justice Sanjiv Khanna

AREA OF LAW:
Criminal Law

Author of the Judgement:

Justice Sanjiv Khanna supplementing Justice Deepak Gupta

Ratio
Unanimous

Ratio Decidendi:
In this case the court held that the expression ‘any property’ under section 102 Code of Criminal

Procedure, 1973 would not include immovable property. The court held that first part of sub-

section (1) of Section 102 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 relates to the property which

may be stolen. Immovable Property cannot be stolen and cannot fall in this part. The second part

relates to the property which may be found by a police officer under circumstances which create

to the suspicion to the commission of any offence. If courts 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 dispossesses, etc. to the police officer on a mere

1
(2019) 20 Supreme Court Cases 119
conjecture and surmise, that is, on suspicion, which has hitherto not been exercised. The word

“suspicion” is weaker word than “reasonable belief” or “satisfaction”. The police is an

investigator not an adjudicator or decision maker.

Section 102 postulates seizure of property. Immovable property cannot, in its strict sense, be

seized, through documents of title, etc. relating to immovable property can be seized, taken into

custody, and produced. Immovable property can be attached and locked/sealed.

Section 102 of the code is not the general provision which enables and authorizes the police

officer to seize immovable property and authorizes the police officer to seize immovable

property for being able to produce during trial in the criminal court. This, however, would not

bar or prohibit the police officer seizing documents/papers of titles from the immovable property,

as it is distinct and different from seizure of the immovable property.

FACTS
The division of Justice Jagdish Singh Khehar and Arun Mishra on wide order dated 18-11-2014

noticing that the current issue that arise have far reaching and serious consequences, had referred

the appeals to be heard by the judges of at least three Judges bench.

The appeal in the present case has arise from the judgement of the High Court of Judicature at

Bombay dated 29-11-2010 wherein the majority has held that the expression “any property” used

in sub-section (1) of Section 102 of the Code of Criminal Procedure does not include immovable

property and, consequently, a police officer investigating a criminal case cannot take custody of

and seize any immovable property which may found under suspicion of the commission of any

offence.
According to the majority judgement, earlier decision of the Division Bench of the same High

Court in Kishore Shankar Signapurkar v. State of Maharashtra2 lays down the correct ratio and

the contrary view expressed in Bombay Science & Research Education Institute v. State of

Maharashtra3 does not lay down the correct law. The minority view holds that the police officer

has power to seize any property, whether moveable or immovable under section 102 of the Code

of Criminal Procedure 1973 and the decision of the Division in Bombay Science & research

Institute lays down the correct law and the ratio in Kishore Shankar Signapurkar is not good law

POINT OF LAW
The Point of law involved in the case is

Section 102 of the Code of Criminal Procedure – 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 creates suspicion of the commission

of any offence.

(2) Such police officer, if subordinate to the officer in charge of a police station, shall forthwith

report the seizure to that officer.

(3) Every police officer acting under sub-section (1) shall forthwith report the seizure to the

Magistrate having Jurisdiction and where the property seized is such that it cannot be

conveniently transported to the court, or where there is difficulty in securing proper

2
(1997) 4 CJ (Bom)
3
2008 All MR (cri) 2133
accommodation for the custody of such property, or where the continued retention of the

property in police custody may not be considered necessary for the purpose of investigation, he

may give custody there of to any person on his executing a bond undertaking to produce the

property before the court and as when required and to give effect to the further orders of the

court as to the disposal of the same. Provided that where the property seized under subsection (1)

is subject to speedy and natural decay and if the person entitled to the possession of such

property is unknown or absent and the value of such property is less than five hundred rupees, it

may forthwith be sold by auction under the orders of the Superintendent of Police and the

provisions of Sections 457 and 458 shall, as nearly as may be practicable, apply to the net

proceeds of such sale

DECISION OF THE COURT

In this case Hon’ble Supreme Court held that the under section 102(1) of the Code of Criminal

Procedure, 1973 word “property” used does not include immovable property and include only

movable property.

DISSCUSSION OF THE JUDGEMENT

The Judgement of the Hon’ble Supreme Court is fundamentally correct in ruling that Section

102(1) does not include immovable property within its ambit as

I. As language of CrPC 1973 it is mentioned that “property which may be suspected to be stolen”

immovable property cannot be stolen

II. immovable property cannot be seized or cannot into custody it can only be sealed.
III. giving wide discretionary power to police officer to seize any property on ground of mere

suspicion may have severe consequences as pointed out in Judgement.

IV. Sub-section (3) of the Section 102 used the term “produce before the court when necessary

immovable property cannot be produced before in the court.

In this case court has also settled the legal principle which was unsettled for many years and

different high courts have given different ruling on the question whether Section 102 of the Code

of Criminal Procedure 1973, include immovable property or not.

Supreme Court in the present case uses the rule of statutory interpretation to interpret the

meaning of the word not in plain simple language as in written in CrPC but read the whole

Section and interpret according to the whole context in which the word is used rectifying the

mistaken belief.

BRIEF SUMMATION

The Present case of Nevada Properties Private Limited v. State of Maharashtra was appeal

against the judgement of Bombay High Court which first appeared before division bench of

Justice Jagdish Singh Khehar and Arun Mishra which sees that issues involves broader question

of law transferred the present case referred the case to Bench of at least three Judges.

The Unanimous Judgement delivered by three Judge bench which held that under 102(1) of the

Code of Criminal Procedure 1973, the word used “property” does not include “immovable

property”. Hence police officer acting under section 102 of the Code of Criminal Procedure

1973, can seize only “movable property” and not “immovable property”.