Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973:

s. 102 – Power of police officer to seize certain property – Immovable property, if would fall under the expression ‘any property’ u/s. 102 – Held: Power of a police officer u/s. 102 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 an immovable property – Word ‘property’ in a particular section covers only that type of property in respect of which the offence contemplated in that section can be committed – This core principle is to be applied when the expression ‘any property’ used in s. 102 is interpreted – Expression ‘any property’ appearing in s. 102 would not include immovable property – Section 102 postulates seizure of the property – Immovable property cannot, in its strict sense, be seized, though documents of title, etc. relating to immovable property can be seized, taken into custody and produced – Immovable property can be attached and also locked/sealed – Seizure of immovable property in this sense and manner would in law require dispossession of the person in occupation/possession of the immovable property, unless there are no claimants, which would be rare – Language of Section 102 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 – As far as possession of the immovable property is concerned, specific provisions in the form of Sections 145 and 146 can be invoked as per and in accordance with law – Thus, Section 102 is not a general provision which enables and authorises the police officer to seize immovable property for being able to be produced in the criminal court during trial – This, however, would 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.

ss. 451, 452 and 456 – Provisions dealing with disposal of property, if defines scope of s. 102 – Held: ss. 451, 452 and 456 do not directly define the contours and scope of s. 102 – Section 102 is not the primary or the core provision which would make the provisions of s. 451, 452 or 456 applicable.

Judgment/Order: Ratio decidendi of a decision – Application of inversion test – Held: Inversion test is one of the tests applied to decide the ratio decidendi of a decision – Inversion test states that the court must first carefully frame the supposed proposition of law and then insert in the proposition a word reversing its meaning to get the answer whether or not a decision is a precedent for that proposition – If the answer is in the affirmative, the case is not a precedent for that proposition – If the answer is in the negative, the case is a precedent for the original proposition and possibly for other propositions also – By applying the inversion test, it can be said that the decision in Tapas D. Neogy’case did not go into and decide the issue, whether immovable property would fall under the expression ‘any property’ u/s. 102 – Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 – s. 102. Ratio decidendi – Meaning of – Held: A decision is only an authority for what it actually decides – The essence in a decision is its ratio – Not every observation found therein nor what logically flows from those observations is the ratio decidendi – Judgment has to be read as a whole and the observations have to be considered in light of the instances which were before the court – This is the way to ascertain the true principles laid down by a decision – Ratio decidendi cannot be decided by picking out words or sentences averse to the context under question from the judgment – Thus, it is clear that Tapas D. Neogy’s case did not decide whether or not an immovable property will fall within the expression ‘any property’ in section 102 of the Code – Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 – s. 102.

Criminal Law Amendment Ordinance, 1944 : Promulgation of – Held: Was to prevent disposal or concealment of property procured by means of offences specified in its Schedule, which include offences punishable u/ss. 406, 408, 409, 411 and 414 IPC in respect of Government property, property of local authority or a Corporation established by or under a Central, Provincial or State Act, etc., and an offence punishable under the Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988 – This Ordinance is a permanent Ordinance – It was adopted by the Presidential Adaptation of Laws Order, 1950 making it effective in the territory of India and, thus, continues to remain in force.