SHENTO VARGHESE Vs. JULFIKAR HUSEN

JUDGEMENT

(1.) Leave granted.

(2.) These appeals have been preferred at the instance of the first informant in Crime No.318 of 2022. By the impugned order dtd. 9/8/2023, passed in Crl. O.P. Nos.14029 and 14031 of 2023 and Crl. M.P. Nos.8658 of 2023, the High Court of Madras has allowed the claim of the Respondents-accused for de-freezing of their bank accounts. The High Court has ordered for de-freezing on the specific ground that there was delay on part of the police in reporting the seizure to the jurisdictional Magistrate. The facts in the instant case, which we shall advert to later below, have given rise to following question of law:

(3.) Our research indicates that there is no authoritative pronouncement of this Court on this issue. If we turn to the pronouncements of the High Courts, there are decisions (See Table at Annexure A for a compilation of the 36 decisions on this issue) which have directly confronted this question. Having reviewed these decisions, we find that, broadly, there are two prevailing strands of thought: one set of cases holding that delayed reporting to the Magistrate would, ipso facto, vitiate the seizure order; and the other view being that delayed reporting would constitute a mere irregularity and would not vitiate the seizure order.