VIKRAM Vs. STATE OF MAHARASHTRA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) Heard. Rule. Rule made returnable forthwith. Heard finally by consent of learned counsel for the parties.

(2.) Affidavit-in-reply dtd. 13/12/2022 along with the letter dtd. 12/12/2022 tendered to the Court across the bar is taken on record. The affidavit-in-reply is marked as "document A" and the letter dtd. 12/12/2022 is marked as "document B" for identification.

(3.) The issue involved in this petition - "Whether or not immovable property can be seized by the Investigating Officer in exercise of his power under Sec. 102 of the Code of Criminal Procedure ("Code" for short), is something, which does not take too long to answer. The issue, in fact, has been answered by the Apex Court in an authoritative manner in it's judgment delivered by a 3-Judge Bench in the case of Nevada Properties Private Limited Through its Directors Vs. State of Maharashtra and another (2019) 20 Supreme Court Cases 119.