In a groundbreaking verdict, the Supreme Court overturned a previous High Court ruling, asserting that the tardiness in reporting police seizure to the magistrate wouldn’t render the seizure itself invalid under Section 102(3) of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973.
The bench, led by Justices P.S. Narasimha and Aravind Kumar, highlighted that although the law mandates immediate reporting (“forthwith”), the delay in doing so wouldn’t nullify the seizure entirely.
In their judgment, the Justices outlined a nuanced approach for magistrates in assessing police conduct under Section 102(3). They stressed the need to first examine if the seizure report was promptly submitted and, if not, to scrutinize the reasons behind any delay. While justified delays wouldn’t undermine the seizure, unexplained delays or negligence might warrant disciplinary actions against the officials involved.
The case at hand involved the freezing of an accused individual’s bank account by police order on January 9, 2023, with the seizure report reaching the magistrate on January 27, 2023.
Challenging the High Court’s decision favoring the accused, the complainant appealed to the Supreme Court, raising the pivotal question of whether delayed reporting vitiated the seizure order.
Resolutely, the Court interpreted “forthwith” to mean “as soon as may be,” emphasizing flexibility to accommodate varying circumstances. They asserted that the interpretation hinges on the urgency of the situation and the nature of the task at hand.
The verdict underscores the absence of a fixed timeline for reporting seizures, emphasizing instead a case-by-case evaluation based on reasonableness.
Conclusively, the Court rebuked the High Court’s blanket invalidation of the seizure, advocating for a contextual understanding of Section 102(3) and a case-specific assessment of reporting timelines.
In essence, the ruling sets a precedent, aligning legal interpretation with practical exigencies and ensuring procedural fairness in law enforcement actions.
