The Co-Existence Conundrum: Can Police Powers Under CrPC Intersect with the Prevention of Corruption Act?

Introduction

Does the specific and comprehensive framework of the Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988 (PC Act), completely oust the general powers of the investigating police officer under the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 (CrPC), particularly when it comes to securing the ill-gotten gains of a public servant? This question, at the nexus of India’s fight against corruption, hinges on whether the general power of “seizure” of property by the police is mutually exclusive to the detailed procedure for “attachment” and “confiscation” of tainted property under the PC Act. The answer lies in carefully distinguishing the objectives and procedures enshrined in these two pivotal legal instruments.

The legal journey that brought this question to the fore involved a case concerning disproportionate assets. The investigation was initiated against a police officer under the PC Act for illicitly enriching himself and accumulating properties in his name and those of his relatives, which were found to be disproportionate to his known sources of income. In the course of this investigation, the police, in an effort to secure evidence and prevent dissipation of funds, proceeded to freeze the fixed deposits held by the accused officer’s father (the Respondent), using the power vested in them under Section 102 of the CrPC (now section 106 of BNSS).

The respondent sought to de-freeze these accounts. While the Trial Court rejected his plea, the matter took a different turn at the High Court, which directed the de-freezing of the accounts. The High Court’s rationale rested on the premise that the attachment or freezing of bank accounts in connection with an offence under the PC Act must be made in accordance with the PC Act’s specific provision, Section 18A, and not under the general power of Section 102 of the CrPC. This conclusion was drawn partly from the observation in the case of Ratan Babulal Lath v. State of Karnataka¹, which had previously suggested that the PC Act is a “Code by itself”. It was this ruling that was challenged by the State, leading to the landmark judgment of the Supreme Court in the case of The State Of West Bengal v. Anil Kumar Dey². This appeal necessitated a clear demarcation of the powers of “seizure” by the police versus “attachment” by the court under the statutory scheme.

The Doctrine of Complementary Powers

To fully grasp the intricate relationship between the two Acts, a closer look at the key provisions is necessary.

Section 102, CrPC: The Power of Seizure. This provision grants a police officer the authority to seize any property that is alleged or suspected to have been stolen, or which is found under circumstances creating suspicion of the commission of any offence. This power can extend to freezing bank accounts, as affirmed by the Supreme Court in precedents like State of Maharashtra v. Tapas D. Neogy³ and Suresh Nanda v. CBI⁴. Critically, the primary purpose of a Section 102 order is to aid the investigation by securing the property as evidence, and it does not require prior judicial approval.

Section 18A, PC Act: The Procedure for Attachment. This provision specifically incorporates the procedures laid down in the Criminal Law Amendment Ordinance, 1944 (Ordinance), for the attachment, administration of attached property, and execution of the order of attachment or confiscation. This procedure is fundamentally different. It involves a formal application by the State Government to the Special Judge to pass an ad interim order of attachment. This process is sequential, deliberative, involves affidavits stating grounds for belief, and is meant to be compliant with the principles of natural justice.

The essential distinction is thus revealed: Seizure is an immediate investigative tool used by the police to secure property (including bank accounts) as potential evidence, irrespective of whether the investigation is complete. Attachment is a subsequent judicial remedy invoked by the Government to prevent the funds suspected of being disproportionate from being withdrawn/transferred, aiming towards eventual confiscation.

In setting aside the High Court’s order, the Supreme Court embarked on an essential analysis of judicial precedent. It was noted that the High Court’s reliance on the case of Ratan Babulal Lath to hold that the PC Act is a complete code and therefore precludes the application of Section 102 CrPC was flawed. The Court observed that Ratan Babulal Lath did not contain a discussion of the facts or the relevant principles of law, and thus, did not constitute a binding precedent for want of a properly reasoned ratio decidendi. In the parlance of law, the issue was one that had passed sub silentio.

The final and compelling rationale of the Supreme Court was to affirm that the power of seizure under Section 102 CrPC and the power of attachment under Section 18A PC Act are not mutually exclusive. The two powers operate in distinct and complementary spheres: the former serving the immediate needs of investigation, and the latter serving the purpose of judicial attachment leading to confiscation.

Conclusion

The Supreme Court upheld the State’s appeal, clarifying a vital point of law: the police are indeed authorised to seize or freeze bank accounts under Section 102 CrPC even when proceedings are initiated solely under the PC Act. However, the completion of the investigation and the presentation of a final report means the freezing may no longer be required to ‘aid investigation’. Consequently, while the Court set aside the High Court’s order, it directed the concerned parties to proceed to the appropriate court for adjudication on the continued requirement of the freezing order in light of the completed investigation and presentation of the final report. This ruling ensures that the initial ability of the police to swiftly secure tainted assets is preserved, while safeguarding the rights of the accused through the subsequent, deliberative process of attachment under the PC Act/Ordinance.

Citations

1. Ratan Babulal Lath v. State of Karnataka, Criminal Appeal No. 949 of 2021
2. State of West Bengal vs Anil Kumar Dey, 2025 INSC 141
3. State of Maharashtra v. Tapas D. Neogy,(1999) 7 SCC 685
4. Suresh Nanda Vs. CBI (Appeal (Crl .) No.179/08

Expositor(s): Adv. Archana Shukla