DATE OF JUDGEMENT:
6th September 2021
BENCH:
Justice Sanjay Kishan Kaul
Justice M.M Sundresh
PARTIES
Appellant-RatanBabulal Lath
Respondent-The State of Karnataka
SUBJECT
- The Supreme Court observed that the bank account of a person accused under the Prevention of Corruption Act cannot be attached invoking Section 102 of the Code of Criminal Procedure.
OVERVIEW
- The sole question raised before the Apex Court is whether the attachment of the bank account of the appellant is sustainable in the exercise of powers under Section 102 Cr.PC.
- The respondent submitted that they are in the process of filing an application under Section 18A of the Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988, since the earlier authorization issued by the Government under Section 3 of the Criminal Law Amendment of Ordinance, 1944 was not in the form of the Government order.
LEGAL PROVISIONS
- Section 102 Cr.PC:A police officer may seize any property which may be alleged or suspected to have been stolen, or which may be found under circumstances that create suspicion of the commission of any offence.
- Section 18A of Prevention Corruption Act: The provision of the criminal law Amendment Ordinance 1944, shall, as may be, apply to the attachment, administration of attached property and execution of an order of attached or confiscation of money or property procured through an offence under the PC Act.
ISSUE
- Whether the attachment of the bank account of the appellant is sustainable in the exercise of powers under Section 102 Cr.PC?
COURT’S OBSERVATION
- The Apex Court held that it is not possible to sustain the freezing of the bank account of the appellant,as the Prevention Corruption Act is a code by itself.
- In addition to that, the court has given a brief elaboration of the legal provision of Section 102 Cr.PC, wherein a police officer may seize any property which may be alleged or suspected to have been stolen, or which may be found under circumstances that create suspicion of the commission of any offence. As per Section 18A of the Prevention Corruption Act, the provision of the criminal law Amendment Ordinance 1944, shall, as may be, apply to the attachment, administration of attached property and execution of an order of attached or confiscation of money or property procured through an offence under the PC Act.
- Thereby, the freezing of the account of the appellant cannot be sustained and ordered to be set aside.
CONCLUSION
The appeal was allowed and consequently, the Apex Court ordered to set aside the impugned order and told that the parties must bear their costs.
Click here to download the original copy of the judgement
