New Delhi: The Supreme Court on Tuesday held that police do not have any power under the Code of Criminal Procedure (CrPC) to seize, attach and seal any immovable property like a house, plot or land, during the investigation of a criminal case.
The top court said if a police officer is allowed to seize immovable property on mere suspicion of commission of an offence, it would mean giving a "drastic and extreme power" to dispossess the owner of the property on mere conjectures.
"The reference is answered by holding that the power of a police officer under section 102 of the Code to seize any property, which may be found under circumstances that create suspicion of the commission of any offence, would not include the power to attach, seize and seal the immovable property," a bench of Chief Justice Ranjan Gogoi and justices Deepak Gupta and Sanjiv Khanna said.
"Section 102 of the code is not a general provision which enables and authorises a police officer to seize immovable property for being able to be produced in a criminal court during the trial", it said.
The top court said disputes relating to title and possession, among others, of immovable properties are civil disputes which have to be decided and adjudicated in civil courts.
"We must discourage and stall any attempt to convert civil disputes into criminal cases to put pressure on the other side," it said, adding that "thus, it will 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".
The bench, however, clarified that section 102 of the CrPC would not bar or prohibit a police officer from seizing documents and papers of title relating to immovable property, as it is distinct and different from the 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," it added.
Dealing with the legal aspect of seizure of the immovable property, it said the language of section 102 does not support the interpretation that a police officer has the power to dispossess a person in occupation and take possession of the 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 a police officer, we would hesitate and not hold that this power should be inferred and is implicit in the power to effect seizure," it further added.
The bench said the scope and object of the section, is to help and assist the investigation and to enable a police officer to collect and collate evidence to be produced to prove the charge complained of and set up in the charge sheet.
"The expression 'circumstances which create suspicion of the commission of any offence' in section 102 does not refer to a firm opinion or an adjudication/finding by a police officer to ascertain whether or not any property' is required to be seized.
"The word 'suspicion' is a weaker and a broader expression than 'reasonable belief' or 'satisfaction'. The police officer is an investigator and not an adjudicator or a decision-maker," the bench said.
The bench answered the reference made by a two-judge bench on November 18, 2014, on a batch of the petition in which it had been said the issues have far-reaching and serious consequences which were needed to be decided by a larger bench.
Justice Deepak Gupta, who concurred with the verdict, gave his own reasoning and said this court is not concerned with the procedure to be followed for attachment and forfeiture of the property but only the meaning of the word property.
"Thus, section 105C empowers the court to order forfeiture of any property which it may feel is derived or obtained directly or indirectly by the commission of an offence," Justice Gupta said, adding the power of attachment and forfeiture is given to courts and not to a police officer.
Also read: ED files PMLA case in Maha Cooperative bank scam case; books Ajit Pawar, others
