Power of police officer to seize certain property
Section 102 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 deals with power of police officer to seize certain property. Any police officer, may seize any property which may be alleged or suspected to have been stolen, or which may be found under circumstances which create suspicion of the commission of any offence. The Act came into force on 01 Apr 1974. Repealed by section 531 of the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023 (46 of 2023) with effect from 1 July 2024, but conduct before that date is still charged, tried and appealed under it.
(1) Any police officer, may seize any property which may be alleged or suspected to have been stolen, or which may be found under circumstances which create suspicion of the commission of any offence.
(2) Such police officer, if subordinate to the officer in charge of a police station, shall forthwith report the seizure to that officer.
[(3) 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, 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 102, The Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 (Act 2 of 1974).
Now in the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita
BNSS 106 Power of police officer to seize certain property Text carried over almost unchanged 95%
Measured by comparing the text of the two provisions, not taken from an official correspondence table — there is no machine-readable one. See both texts side by side before relying on it.
Both regimes are live. The repealed enactment still governs what happened while it was in force. We never redirect one to the other.
Related judgements & precedents
These are some judgments that construed this section, and hold precedence value. They hold authority on how to read, interpret and use this section.
-
State of Maharashtra v. Tapas D. Neogy
Court's Decision & Legal Precedent
Judgment of Main Case order-1.pdf 1999-09-16 DATE VERIFIED. Pattanaik/Hegde. A bank account of the accused or a relation is 'property' under CrPC 102; police may seize/prohibit operation if the assets have a direct link with the offence. Overrules contrary Bombay / Karnataka / Gauhati / Allahabad views. Map 102 only; do not pad PC Act 13 or CrPC 457. Nevada Properties remains ROP-only on its own CNR.
On this section: A bank account of the accused or a relation is 'property' under s.102 and may be seized if it has a direct link with the offence (Tapas D. Neogy).
-
Nevada Properties Pvt. Ltd. through Its Director LTD vs The State of Maharashtra Home Department S. H. O
Court's Decision & Legal Precedent
The expression 'any property' appearing in Section 102(1) of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 does not include immovable property. A police officer does not have the power to attach, seize, and seal an immovable property under Section 102 of the Code. The word 'seize' in Section 102 means actual taking of possession which cannot be done with immovable property without dispossessing the occupant, which power is not conferred by Section 102. Immovable property disputes must be adjudicated by Civil Courts or through specialized statutory procedures like the Criminal Law Amendment Ordinance 1944 or Chapter VIIA of the Code. However, police may seize documents or papers of title relating to immovable property as this is distinct from seizure of the immovable property itself.
On this section: Core provision at issue - interpreted to mean 'any property' refers only to movable property, not immovable property. Police officer cannot seize immovable property under this section.
-
Ratan Babulal Lath vs The State of Karnataka
Court's Decision & Legal Precedent
When the Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988 is the applicable substantive law in a case, the freezing or attachment of a person's bank account cannot be sustained under Section 102 Cr.P.C. The Prevention of Corruption Act is a Code by itself with its own procedures for asset attachment, and these procedures must be followed rather than invoking the general provisions of the Criminal Procedure Code. The respondent cannot retroactively validate an improperly executed freezing order by subsequently filing an application under Section 18A of the Prevention of Corruption Act.
On this section: The Court examined whether Section 102 Cr.P.C. (which deals with attachment of property) could be used to freeze the appellant's bank account. The Court held that this section cannot be invoked when the Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988 is the applicable substantive law, as the Prevention of Corruption Act is a Code by itself with its own procedures.
-
Sreekala K. vs Central Bureau of Investigation
Court's Decision & Legal Precedent
In Prevention of Corruption Act cases, the power to seize/freeze bank accounts under Section 102 Cr.P.C. is valid and legal, and does not become illegal merely because the Criminal Law Amendment Ordinance 1944 (made applicable by Section 18A) provides for attachment of property. Section 102 Cr.P.C. seizure and Criminal Law Amendment Ordinance 1944 attachment serve different purposes - seizure aids investigation while attachment secures money for forfeiture - and can coexist. Further, the failure to report seizure to the Magistrate under Section 102(3) Cr.P.C. does not render the seizure illegal or vitiated, as the validity of the power to seize under Section 102(1) is independent of the duty to report under Section 102(3). The purpose of reporting is only to enable disposal of seized property, and non-compliance may affect the property holder's right to seek disposal but does not vitiate the seizure itself.
On this section: Section 102 provides power to seize property suspected to be stolen or found in circumstances creating suspicion of offence; Section 102(3) requires reporting to Magistrate; Sections 451, 457, 459 deal with disposal of seized property
-
Sree Gowri Ganesha Souharda Credit Co-operativ Society Ltd. vs The Superintendnt of Police
Court's Decision & Legal Precedent
An Investigating Officer cannot direct freezing of bank accounts by invoking Sections 91 or 92 of the Criminal Procedure Code. The correct provision is Section 102 CrPC. Compliance with Section 102(3) CrPC, which mandates that the police officer must forthwith report the seizure to the Magistrate having jurisdiction, is mandatory and not merely procedural. Non-compliance with this mandatory requirement vitiates the freezing of the bank account. Therefore, a bank freeze order that does not follow the procedure prescribed under Section 102 CrPC is legally unsustainable and liable to be quashed.
On this section: Court held that Section 102 is the correct provision under which police can seize property including bank accounts; mandatory compliance with subsection (3) requiring immediate reporting to Magistrate is essential
-
Sarabjeet Singh @ Binny vs State
Court's Decision & Legal Precedent
In criminal proceedings, the question of restoration of possession of immovable property cannot be decided in a writ petition before trial. Restoration of possession can only be ordered under Section 456 CrPC after conviction of the accused. Disputes relating to possession and title of immovable property are civil matters which must be adjudicated by Civil Courts, not criminal courts. Criminal courts have limited jurisdiction to determine only whether illegal dispossession occurred as a criminal act, not to adjudicate civil rights to possession.
On this section: Police authority to seize property - court held this does not extend to immovable property on mere suspicion
-
G.suma vs The State of Ap.
Court's Decision & Legal Precedent
Interim custody of seized property can be granted to a legal heir or interested party pending criminal trial, subject to: (a) preparation of detailed panchanama with photographs; (b) furnishing of adequate security through immovable property bonds; (c) execution of undertaking to produce property as and when required; (d) undertaking that photographs and panchanama may be marked as evidence if property cannot be produced at trial; and (e) compliance with other terms and conditions imposed by the Court. The property remains under custodia legis and Court's control, and the owner should not suffer merely because the property is seized as evidence in a criminal case.
On this section: Search and seizure in cognizable offences; basis for Court's control over property in connection with crime
-
Yanamadala Anil Chand vs The State of Andhra Pradesh
Court's Decision & Legal Precedent
Where a person has been acquitted in most criminal cases, has not been involved in any criminal activity for several years, and has no pending cases, the continuation of a rowdy sheet without any current justification may be deemed arbitrary. In such circumstances, the appropriate remedy is to permit the person to make a representation before the competent police authority (Sub-Divisional Police Officer) for closure of the rowdy sheet, rather than granting absolute mandamus, thereby balancing law enforcement interests with individual rehabilitation rights.
On this section: Cited in context of criminal case Cr.No.277/2002 under NDPS Act
-
State of Haryana vs Shakir @ Shahrukh, S/o- Jamil
Court's Decision & Legal Precedent
When the prosecution case rests solely on the statements of official police witnesses without any independent corroborating witnesses, the evidence must be subjected to close scrutiny. The prosecution must establish both the actus reus (guilty act) and mens rea (guilty mind) of the accused, along with the causal connection between the alleged criminal acts and the accused person. Mere recovery of contraband articles does not establish the accused's involvement unless the prosecution proves the accused's direct participation in the offence. Procedural compliance, particularly the mandatory requirement to associate independent witnesses during recovery under Section 100(4) Cr.P.C., is essential for the credibility of the prosecution case. In the absence of such compliance and independent corroboration, the accused is entitled to the benefit of doubt and acquittal.
On this section: Burden of proof on prosecution to prove guilt beyond reasonable doubt; court applied this cardinal principle
-
S.senu vs The Inspector of Police
Court's Decision & Legal Precedent
When a deposited amount requires recovery and the police have initiated proceedings under Section 92 CrPC by writing to the District Magistrate, the High Court should direct the subordinate judicial authority to pass appropriate orders for recovery within a specified timeframe, rather than directing the police to take independent action. The proper procedure for recovery of deposited amounts is through the District Magistrate under Section 92 CrPC.
On this section: Cited as the provision under which police could seize the deposited amount, though the court ultimately directed the matter through Section 92 CrPC.
The holding above is the ratio decidendi as extracted from the judgment by eCourts India, reproduced unaltered — it is a rendering of the court's reasoning, not a substitute for its words. Read the order itself before relying on it.
Judgments citing this section
These may be obiter dicta or a precedent, for you to study. These are the judgments where this section is quoted.
-
… Reference was made to several judgments of the High Courts, some of which would be discussed later, to hold as under: > <span id="page-5-0"></span>"12. Having considered the divergent views taken by different High Courts with regard to the power of seizure under Section 102 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, and whether the bank account can be held to be "property" within the meaning of the said Section 102(1), we see no justification to give any narrow interpretation to the provisions of the Criminal Procedure Code. It is well known that corruption in public offices has become so …
Questions about Section 102
What have the courts held on Section 102 of the Code of Criminal Procedure?
State of Maharashtra v. Tapas D. Neogy (16 Sep 1999) is the leading judgment on this section among those set out below: A bank account of the accused or a relation is 'property' under s.102 and may be seized if it has a direct link with the offence (Tapas D. Neogy). Another 9 judgments on this section are set out below, 3 of them from the Supreme Court. They run from 1999 to 2026.
How do I find court cases under Section 102 of the Code of Criminal Procedure?
In judgments and charge sheets this section is written several ways, and each form finds a different set of orders. These search the full text of every order eCourtsIndia holds, best matches first: CRPC 102, section 102 CRPC, section 102 of the Code of Criminal Procedure. Each opens the full list of orders on eCourtsIndia, where it can be narrowed by court, year and outcome. 10 reported judgments on this section are set out on this page, beginning with State of Maharashtra v. Tapas D. Neogy (16 Sep 1999).
What should I read with Section 102 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, and has it changed?
For anything done on or after 1 July 2024 the provision to read is BNSS 106 (Power of police officer to seize certain property), which replaced it; conduct before that date is still charged, tried and appealed under this section.
When did Section 102 of the Code of Criminal Procedure come into force?
Section 102 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, cited as CRPC 102, came into force on 01 Apr 1974, having been enacted on 25 Jan 1974. It is no longer in force.
Other sections of this Act
- 320. Compounding of offences1554 words
- 167. Procedure when investigation cannot be completed in twenty four hours1005 words
- 220. Trial for more than one offence962 words
- 360. Order to release on probation of good conduct or after admonition804 words
- 2. Definitions799 words
- 198. Prosecution for offences against marriage774 words
Source and method. Compiled from the enactments of Parliament and of the State legislatures as published on India Code, and republished together with commentary and other original matter under section 52(1)(q)(ii) of the Copyright Act, 1957. Structured, cross-referenced and maintained by eCourtsIndia. Recovered from the consolidated text published by India Code (item 330a1099-77ad-4a2e-b22a-769b33398f9e). This page is not a substitute for legal advice.