Case Title – Shento Varghese Vs. Julfikar Husen & Ors. 2024 INSC 407
Case Number – Criminal Appeal No. 2531-2532/2024 @ SLP(Crl.) No. 10504-10505/2023
Dated on – 13th May, 2024
Quorum – Justice Aravind Kumar
FACTS OF THE CASE
The case of Shento Varghese Vs. Julfikar Husen & Ors. 2024 INSC 407, involves a dispute between the Appellant, Shento Varghese, and the Respondents, Julfikar Husen & Ors. The Appellant worked as a deliveryman in a company namely “PR Gold.” The Respondents allegedly ordered for 47 Kerela Model Gold Chains from the Appellant. In exchange, they consented to provide the gold bars of coequal value. However, the Appellant later detected that the gold bars provided by the Respondents turned out to be fake. Consequently, the Appellant instituted a complaint with the Police, which led to an initiation of investigation. While the conduction of the investigation, it was unveiled that certain monies amounting to Rs, 19,83,036 were deposited in the bank accounts of the accused Respondents. Subsequently, the investigating officer directed the freezing of these bank accounts on the 9th of January, 2023. However, this order was reported to the Magistrate after a delay, only on the 27th of January,2023. The Respondents unsuccessfully approached the Jurisdictional Magistrate to obtain custody of the frozen bank accounts. Further, the Respondents filed an original petition under Section 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 before the High Court of Madras, seeking for the de-freezing of the bank accounts. The High Court of Madras, allowed the application, setting aside the seizure order on the ground of delayed reporting to the Magistrate.
ISSUES
The main issue of the case whirled around whether the delay in reporting of the seizure to the Magistrate tarnishes the order of seizure entirely?
Whether the implication of non-reporting of the seizure forthwith to the Jurisdictional Magistrate as mentioned under Section 102(3) of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 mandatory or directory?
LEGAL PROVISIONS
Section 102(1) of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 prescribes the Power of Police Officer to seize certain property
Section 102(3) of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 prescribes that 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 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 thereof to any person on his executing a bond undertaking to produce the property before the Court as and when required and to give effect to the further orders of the Court as to the disposal of the same
Section 157 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 prescribes the Procedure for Investigation
Section 457 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 prescribes the Procedure by Police upon seizure of property
Section 459 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 prescribes the Power to sell perishable property
Section 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 prescribes the Saving of inherent powers of the court
CONTENTIONS OF THE APPELLANTS
The Appellants, through their counsel, in the said case contented that the delay in reporting of the seizure to the Magistrate should not tarnish the seizure order unless serious prejudice is demonstrated by the Respondents.
The Appellants, through their counsel, in the said case contented that the compliance with the reporting obligation is not a jurisdictional prerequisite for exercising the power to seize under Section 102(1) of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973.
CONTENTIONS OF THE RESPONDENTS
The Respondents, through their counsel, in the said case contented that the delay in reporting the Magistrate evince the seizure order as illegal and should lead to its nullification.
The Respondents, through their counsel, in the said case contented the significance of instantly informing the Magistrate to ensure proper custody and disposal of the seized property.
The Respondents, through their counsel, in the said case contented that the failure to comply with the reporting erodes the integrity of the seizure process and violates the procedural safeguards.
COURT ANALYSIS AND JUDGMENT
The court in the case of Shento Varghese Vs. Julfikar Husen & Ors. 2024 INSC 407, analysed the historical context and the legislative intentions behind the Section 102(3) of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973. The court examined the precedents and the legislative amendments to understand the importance of reporting the obligations. The court concluded that while the delay in reporting may dent the veracity of the case of the prosecution, it does not tarnish the seizure order. The court, in this case, held that the compliance with reporting obligations is not a jurisdictional prerequisite for exercising the power to seize under Section 102(1) of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 and that the validity of seizure orders can be questioned on the jurisdictional or merit-based grounds but not solely on the basis of delay in the reporting. The court, concerning the interpretation “forthwith” under Section 102(3) of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973, held that it should be understood as “with all reasonable quickness”. The court further clarified that the delay should be assessed on the basis of the circumstances of each case and may not necessarily invalidate the seizure order. The court observed that the reasoning of the High Court was flawed, and the delay in the reporting did not warrant nullification of the seizure order. However, since the bank accounts were already frozen, the court directed the Respondents to execute a bond undertaking to deposit the amount that was withdrawn before the jurisdictional court in the case of conviction. The court, in this case, allowed the appeals in part and set aside the order if the High Court.
“PRIME LEGAL is a full-service law firm that has won a National Award and has more than 20 years of experience in an array of sectors and practice areas. Prime legal fall into a category of best law firm, best lawyer, best family lawyer, best divorce lawyer, best divorce law firm, best criminal lawyer, best criminal law firm, best consumer lawyer, best civil lawyer.”
Judgement Reviewed by – Sruti Sikha Maharana
