Can Police Freeze Accounts Of Accused U/S 102 CrPC In Corruption Cases?: Supreme Court Answers

The Supreme Court has answered whether the police can freeze accounts of the accused under Section 102 of the Criminal Procedure Code, 1973 (CrPC) in corruption cases.

The Court was hearing a Criminal Appeal in which the question that arose was whether, when proceedings initiated against a person are only under the provisions of the Prevention of Corruption Act 1988 (PC Act), would it be open for the investigating authorities (police) to freeze the accounts of the accused persons under Section 102 of CrPC.

The two-Judge Bench comprising Justice Sanjay Karol and Justice Prashant Kumar Mishra held, “The respondent is the father of the main accused. Although he had submitted certain responses to the source of the money present in his accounts, the same was not found to be a justifiable explanation by the investigating authorities and as such, seizure was effected. The release of the funds so seized was rejected by the Trial Court but later accepted by the High Court on the premise that the same had been carried out on an erroneous interpretation of the law. We do not agree. We have held as above that Section 102, Cr.P.C., being distinct from the powers and procedures as detailed under Section 18-A of the PC Act, would apply to the case.”

The Bench added that with the setting aside of the Order of the High Court, the matter would have ended there, but since the investigation has been completed and the final report already stands presented in the case, the freezing of the accounts, of which fixed deposits are undoubtedly a part, may or may not be required.

Senior Advocate Shadan Farasat appeared for the Appellant, while Senior Advocate Siddharth Agarwal appeared for the Respondent.

Court’s Observations

The Supreme Court in view of the facts and circumstances of the case, observed, “While it is undoubted that in ordinary circumstances, information is to be sent to the Magistrate, in certain circumstances, if that is not done, even then the seizure will not be vitiated. This indicates the width of the power granted to the police with the sole aim of smooth facilitation of the investigation. As evidenced by the procedure given in the Ordinance, it is sequential and has to be compliant with principles of natural justice, for it to survive scrutiny. It is necessarily time consuming and deliberative. The difference between the two processes is, therefore, clearly exhibited.”

The Court held that the power of seizure and attachment are separate and distinct, even if, to the naked eye it may so appear, that the effect is same/similar which is, that the property is taken into custody of, by the authority, either investigative or judicial.

“It may be clarified here that our observations regarding the PC Act do not hold, either way, as to its status as a code. They are only confined to the precedential value of Ratan Babulal Lath (supra)”, it clarified.

Accordingly, the Apex Court allowed the Appeal.

Cause Title- The State of West Bengal v. Anil Kumar Dey (Neutral Citation: 2025 INSC 1413)

Click here to read/download the Judgment