AJAY Vs. MOHD. ABID AAMIN RANGGONWALA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) Heard.

(2.) Rule. Rule made returnable forthwith. Heard finally with the consent of the learned counsels appearing for the parties.

(3.) Before I proceed to deal with the controversy, let me discuss the law point on seizure of immovable property. The Full Bench of this Court in the case of Sudhir Vasant Karnataki vs. State of Maharashtra and Ors. and other connected petitions, 2010 SCC OnLine Bom 1808 has ruled that in a criminal offence, an immovable property cannot be seized by the police under the provisions of Setion 102 of the Code of Criminal Procedure . Rather, this judgment has been upheld by the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of Nevada Properties Private Limited vs State of Maharashtr and Anr., 2019 (20) SCC 119. Even, the Rajasthan High Court in the case of Amrit Lal Kumawat and Ors. vs. The State of Rajasthan and Anr. , 1998 SCC OnLine Raj 336, relied upon by the petitioners, has opined that an immovable property cannot be seized by the police nor the Magistrate can pass any order under Sec. 451 of the Cr.P.C. in respect of such properties. Rather, there is no dispute on this aspect.