Delay in report of seizure not fatal for case

Stpl law

May 15, 2024
11:51 am

Criminal Procedure Code, 1973 – Section 102(3) – Criminal Procedure – Duty of police officer to report seizure forthwith to the Magistrate – Implication of delayed reporting – Mandatory or directory nature of reporting obligation – Validity of seizure order – Consequences of non-compliance – Interpretation of “forthwith”. The Supreme Court addressed the question of whether delayed reporting of property seizure by police officers to the Magistrate, as mandated under Section 102(3) of the Criminal Procedure Code, 1973, would vitiate the seizure order. The Court noted conflicting precedents from various High Courts, with some holding that delayed reporting renders the seizure order invalid, while others viewed it as a mere irregularity.

After analyzing the legislative history and intent behind the provision, the Court concluded that the duty to report forthwith is not a jurisdictional prerequisite for exercising the power to seize. The validity of the seizure order can only be challenged on jurisdictional grounds or based on the merits of the case.

Furthermore, the Court clarified that the word “forthwith” must be interpreted to mean “as soon as may be” or “with reasonable speed and expedition,” depending on the circumstances of each case. While non-compliance may dent the veracity of the prosecution’s case, it does not invalidate the seizure order per se.

The Court overruled precedents holding otherwise and emphasized that the consequence of non-compliance should be determined based on proof of prejudice and explanation for the delay, to be adjudicated during trial. Additionally, the Court highlighted the need for appropriate departmental action against erring officials who fail to report seizures promptly.

In the instant case, where bank accounts were frozen based on delayed reporting, the Court held that the freezing order could not be reinstated. Instead, the accused were directed to execute a bond undertaking to deposit the withdrawn amount if convicted, ensuring the ends of justice were met. (Para 17)

SUPREME COURT OF INDIA

2024 STPL(Web) 352 SC

[2024 INSC 407]

Shento Varghese Vs. Julfikar Husen & Ors.

Criminal Appeal Nos. 2531-2532 of 2024 (@ Special Leave Petition (Crl.) Nos.10504-10505 of 2023)-Decided on 13-5-2024

https://stpllaw.in/wp-content/uploads/2024/05/2024-STPLWeb-352-SC.pdf

Breach of peace: It must disturb public order, not just personal peace

May 20, 2024 No Comments

Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 – Sections 145, 146- Breach of peace – Emergency situation – Possession dispute – Civil litigation – Non-application of mind – Proceeding under Section 145 – Attachment under Section 146 – The application under Section 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 challenges the orders by the Executive Magistrate, concerning a dispute under Section 145 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 and subsequent attachment under Section 146(1) of the same.

The petitioner contests the legality of both orders, asserting that the initiation of the proceeding and the attachment were illegal and an abuse of process. It’s argued that the jurisdiction under Section 145 can only be invoked if there’s a likelihood of a breach of peace, which wasn’t sufficiently demonstrated in this case.

The petitioner highlights that the attachment order was passed ex-parte without affording them an opportunity to respond, which is contrary to the exceptional circumstances required for such an order. Reference is made to legal precedent discouraging parallel criminal proceedings when a civil litigation is pending regarding property possession, emphasizing the binding nature of civil court decrees.

The respondents counter by claiming entitlement to the land based on a partition deed and subsequent court judgments. They argue that emergency circumstances justified the attachment due to the petitioner’s attempt to construct on disputed land.

Legal precedents are cited to emphasize that the existence of an emergency, not just the use of the term “emergency,” warrants attachment under Section 146.

The judgment critically examines the orders and the circumstances leading to them. It observes discrepancies between the assertions made in the complaint and police report, highlighting the absence of clear grounds for apprehension of breach of peace.The judgment reiterates the requirement for a dispute likely to cause a breach of peace under Section 145, emphasizing that it must disturb public order, not just personal peace.

It concludes that the impugned orders suffer from non-application of mind and jurisdictional error, resulting in injustice to the petitioner. Consequently, both orders are quashed, and the petition is allowed. Important Paragraph Numbers of Judgment: (Para 13, 19, 30, 31)

GAUHATI HIGH COURT

2023 STPL(Web) 183 Gauhati

[2024 STPL 1651 Gauhati]

Md. Osman Ali Saikia And Anr. Vs. Chand Mahamod Saikia And 2 Ors.

Crl.Pet. 239 of 2021-Decided on 8-11-2023

https://stpllaw.in/wp-content/uploads/2024/05/2023-STPLWeb-183-Gauhati.pdf

Electricity: Outstanding arrears from previous owner

May 20, 2024 No Comments

Constitution of India, Article 226 – Assam Electricity Regulatory Commission [Electricity Supply Code and Related Matters] Regulations, 2004 – Electricity Act, 2003 – Section 43, 49, 50, 56 – Electricity – Outstanding arrears from previous owner – The petitioner, a partnership firm, sought a writ petition under Article 226 challenging a decision by the Assam Power Distribution Company Limited (APDCL) to deny a new electricity connection to their premises due to outstanding arrears from previous electricity bills.

The court directed interim relief for immediate electricity connection, subject to 50% payment of outstanding dues, with the remaining 50% to be paid upon dismissal of the writ petition.

The petitioner participated in an auction sale of a property and purchased a portion of land with a Business Centre cum Market Complex. They subsequently applied for a new electricity connection, which was denied by APDCL citing outstanding dues.

The court referred to the Assam Electricity Regulatory Commission [Electricity Supply Code and Related Matters] Regulations, 2004 and the Electricity Act, 2003. It cited a Supreme Court decision (K.C. Ninan vs. Kerala State Electricity Board) regarding the liability of auction purchasers for previous dues in properties sold on ‘as is where is’ basis.

The court dismissed the writ petition, holding the petitioner liable for outstanding electricity dues as per the auction sale agreement. It directed the petitioner to pay the outstanding dues as per the interim order, with APDCL waiving the accrued interest on the principal dues. (Para 15, 16)

GAUHATI HIGH COURT

2023 STPL(Web) 182 Gauhati

[2024 STPL 1650 Gauhati]

M/S Borah And Companyjiban Phukan Nagar Vs. Assam Power Distribution Company Ltd. And 3 Ors.

WP(C) 989 of 2014-Decided on 7-11-2023

2023 STPL(Web) 182 Gauhati

Executive instructions cannot nullify statutory rules

May 16, 2024 No Comments

Assam Bonded Warehouse Rules, 1965 – Rule 7 – Refund of Charges – Administrative Order – Statutory Rules – The present writ petition contested an order issued by the Secretary to the Government of Assam, Excise Department, reintroducing establishment charges under Rule 7 of the Assam Bonded Warehouse Rules, 1965, despite their abolition by the Assam Bonded Warehouse (Amendment) Rules, 2005.

The Court held that executive instructions cannot nullify statutory rules. Citing the principle established in K. Kuppusamy case, it ruled that until a rule is amended, it remains applicable. Consequently, the impugned order was set aside as ultra vires. Regarding refund, relying on Mafatlal Industries Ltd. case, the Court directed the petitioner to present evidence to the Excise Commissioner, who would determine entitlement to refund within four months, considering whether the petitioner passed on the burden of charges to retailers. (Para 15)

GAUHATI HIGH COURT

2023 STPL(Web) 181 Gauhati

[2024 STPL 1649 Gauhati]

M/S Centenary Distilleries P Ltd. Vs. State Of Assam And 2 Ors.

WP(C) 2875 of 2014-Decided on 7-11-2023

https://stpllaw.in/wp-content/uploads/2024/05/2023-STPLWeb-181-Gauhati-2.pdf

Land Disputes: Binding nature of Civil Court’s decree on Revenue Courts

May 16, 2024 No Comments

Land Disputes – Binding nature of Civil Court’s decree on Revenue Courts – The instant writ petition challenged a judgment of the Assam Board of Revenue concerning a land dispute. The dispute pertained to a plot of land associated with the Dargah of Pir Saheb. The Civil Court in Title Suit No.176/1978 had decreed in favor of the Petitioners’ predecessor, declaring their right, title, and possession over the land. The State of Assam was restrained from interference. Subsequently, the Settlement Officer issued a Khatian in favor of the Petitioners’ predecessor, and a new Dag was created. However, the Assam Board of Revenue, in its impugned judgment, disregarded the Civil Court’s decree and cancelled the Khatian issued to the Petitioners’ predecessor.

This action was deemed contrary to established principles, as Civil Court decrees are binding on Revenue Courts. Therefore, the High Court set aside the impugned judgment, restoring the Khatian to the Petitioners’ predecessor. (Para 12)

GAUHATI HIGH COURT

2023 STPL(Web) 180 Gauhati

[2024 STPL 1648 Gauhati]

Sayed Moinuddin Ahmed Vs. State Of Assam And 3 Ors.

WP(C) 4701 of 2013-Decided on 7-11-2023

https://stpllaw.in/wp-content/uploads/2024/05/2023-STPLWeb-180-Gauhati.pdf

Delay in report of seizure not fatal for case

Stpl law

Breach of peace: It must disturb public order, not just personal peace

Electricity: Outstanding arrears from previous owner

Executive instructions cannot nullify statutory rules

Land Disputes: Binding nature of Civil Court’s decree on Revenue Courts

Recent Articles

Contract: Demurrage not allowed

Breach of peace: It must disturb public order, not just personal peace

Electricity: Outstanding arrears from previous owner

Executive instructions cannot nullify statutory rules

Land Disputes: Binding nature of Civil Court’s decree on Revenue Courts