Prevention of Corruption : Freezing of Bank Accounts under the Act - Accounts can not be defrozen

PC Act - Seizing of Property during investigation and confiscation are distinct and not mutually exclusive. Supreme Court Upholds Distinction in Powers for Property Seizure and Attachment in Corruption Cases Supreme Court clarifies that powers under Section 102 of CrPC and Section 18A of the Prevention of Corruption Act are distinct and not mutually exclusive, setting aside the Calcutta High Court's directive to de-freeze bank accounts.

In a significant ruling, the Supreme Court of India has clarified the legal framework surrounding the seizure and attachment of property in cases involving corruption. The judgment, delivered by a bench comprising Justices Sanjay Karol and Prashant Kumar Mishra, addresses the applicability of Section 102 of the Code of Criminal Procedure (CrPC) and Section 18A of the Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988.

The case arose from an appeal filed by the State of West Bengal against a Calcutta High Court order that directed the de-freezing of bank accounts held by Anil Kumar Dey, father of the main accused, Prabir Kumar Dey Sarkar, in a corruption case. The accounts were initially frozen by the investigating authorities under Section 102 of the CrPC, which allows police officers to seize property suspected of being connected to a crime.

The Supreme Court set aside the High Court's order, emphasizing that the powers under Section 102 of the CrPC are distinct from those under Section 18A of the Prevention of Corruption Act. The Court explained that Section 102 pertains to the seizure of property for investigative purposes, while Section 18A deals with the attachment and confiscation of property acquired through corruption, involving a more deliberative process governed by the Criminal Law Amendment Ordinance, 1944.

In its detailed judgment, the Supreme Court highlighted the procedural safeguards inherent in both legal provisions. The Court noted that the power of seizure under Section 102 is a preliminary step to secure property as evidence during an investigation, without necessitating prior judicial approval. In contrast, the process of attachment under Section 18A is more comprehensive, requiring judicial oversight and adherence to natural justice principles.

The judgment also addressed the precedential value of the case "Ratan Babulal Lath v. State of Karnataka," where the Prevention of Corruption Act was described as a code in itself. The Supreme Court clarified that the earlier judgment lacked detailed reasoning and analysis of the Act's provisions, and therefore, did not constitute a binding precedent under Article 141 of the Constitution.

By upholding the distinct and complementary nature of the two legal provisions, the Supreme Court's decision reaffirms the investigative authorities' ability to seize property under Section 102 of the CrPC, even in cases where proceedings are initiated under the Prevention of Corruption Act.

The ruling has significant implications for the ongoing investigation into the alleged disproportionate assets of Prabir Kumar Dey Sarkar, a police officer accused of amassing wealth beyond his known sources of income. It also sets a precedent for future cases involving the intersection of criminal procedure and anti-corruption laws.

Bottom Line:

The powers under Section 18A of the Prevention of Corruption Act (PC Act) and Section 102 of the Code of Criminal Procedure (CrPC) are not mutually exclusive. While Section 102 CrPC pertains to the seizure of property during investigation, Section 18A of the PC Act deals with the attachment and confiscation of property acquired through corruption, involving a more deliberative process.

Statutory provision(s): Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988 Section 18A, Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 Section 102, Criminal Law Amendment Ordinance, 1944

State of West Bengal v. Anil Kumar Dey, (SC) : Law Finder Doc Id # 2820248