Section 102(3) CrPC is Directory in Nature, Rules J&K&L HC
The bench further stated that if non-adherence to the said provision in a particular fact situation results in prejudice to the owner/person interested in the seized property, the same would be fatal to the act of seizure but in a case where no prejudice would be caused to the owner/person interested by non-adherence to this provision, the same may not render the seizure of the property illegal.
High Court noted that In a case where the subject matter of the seizure is not going to be devalued or its delayed disposal would not result in prejudice to the owner/interested person, the provisions of Section 102(3) of the Cr. P. C would not be Mandatory and non-adherence to the said provision would not render the seizure illegal.
The bench referred to the case of Amit Singh v. State of UP and observed that “once the consequences of non-adherence to the provisions of law are not given in the Statute, it is to be inferred that the said Statute is directory in nature. It is also clear that if no prejudice is caused to the owner of a property By non-reporting of seizure to the concerned Magistrate, it cannot be a case of illegality but such an omission may only be an irregularity. The seizure of bank account, having regard to the nature of property involved, on account of its non-reporting to the concerned Magistrate, therefore, would not render its seizure illegal.”
In the end, High Court stated that the petitioner immediately, after the seizure, approached the Special Judge seeking defreezing of his bank account and, as such, it is not a case where because of non-reporting of the seizure to the Magistrate, the The petitioner was deprived of her right to approach the Magistrate for seeking disposal of the property in her favour. Thus, the seizure of the bank account of the petitioner, in the facts and circumstances of the case, cannot be termed as illegal.
In view of the above, the bench dismissed the competition.
Case Title: Ruqaya Akhter v. UT through Crime branch
Bench: Justice Sanjay Dhar
Case No.: CRM(M) No.223/2022
Counsel for the petitioner: Mr. Bhat Fayaz
Counseling for the respondent: Ms. Asifa Padroo