T. SUBBULAKSHMI Vs. THE COMMISSIONER OF POLICE

JUDGEMENT

(1.) Since the issue involved in all these Criminal Original Petitions as well as Contempt Petitions relates to the same subject matter, all these petitions are taken up together for final disposal by way of this common order.

(2.) Brief facts, which are necessary for disposal, can be stated as under:

(3.) Challenging the same, earlier, the petitioners have filed Cri.O.P.Nos.13103, 13104 and 13105 of 2013 on the ground that the seizure of the property is not in accordance with the provisions under Section 102 of Cr.P.C. and that every Police Officer acting under sub-section (1) to Section 102, shall forthwith report the seizure to the Magistrate having jurisdiction where the property was seized. On the other hand, it was argued on behalf of the prosecution that as per Section 102(3) of Cr.P.C. only such of those properties seized from the accused, if it cannot be conveniently transported to the Court or if there is difficulty in securing the proper accommodation for the custody of such property or the continued retention of the property in police custody may not be considered necessary for the purpose of investigation, only then the report of the seizure should be sent to the concerned Magistrate and not in all the cases. It was also argued that the freezing of the bank accounts does not deprive any person of his liberty or his property as prohibition is temporary in nature, till merits of the case is decided and therefore, non reporting of freezing of the accounts to the Magistrate will not vitiate the entire freezing proceedings.