The Supreme Court clarified that powers under Section 102 CrPC and Section 18A of the Prevention of Corruption Act are not mutually exclusive. Police can seize property during investigation even if attachment under the PC Act is applicable.
New Delhi: The Supreme Court of India has clarified that the powers of police to seize property under Section 102 of the Code of Criminal Procedure (CrPC) and the powers to attach property under Section 18A of the Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988 (PC Act) are not mutually exclusive.
In a landmark judgment delivered on December 10, 2025, a bench comprising Justice Sanjay Karol and Justice Prashant Kumar Mishra set aside the order of the Calcutta High Court that had directed the de-freezing of certain bank accounts.
The High Court had earlier held that since the Prevention of Corruption Act is a complete code, property seizure could only be carried out under Section 18A of the Act.
The key legal question before the Supreme Court was:
“Whether, when proceedings initiated against a person are only under the provisions of the Prevention of Corruption Act 1988, would it be open for the investigating authorities (police) to freeze the accounts of the accused persons under Section 102 of the Code of Criminal Procedure 1973? In other words, are the powers under Section 18A of the PC Act… and the power under Section 102 Cr.P.C… co-existent or mutually exclusive.”
The case arose from an investigation into Prabir Kumar Dey Sarkar, a Sub-Inspector of Police, who was allegedly found to have amassed assets disproportionate to his known sources of income.
The investigation revealed that the accused had acquired properties and funds in his own name and in the names of his relatives, including his father, Anil Kumar Dey, who was the Respondent in this matter.
During the probe into FIR No. 09/19, police froze certain fixed deposits held by the Respondent. In response, the Respondent approached the City Sessions Court, Calcutta, requesting the de-freezing of the accounts, citing his advanced age of 93 years and several medical ailments.
The Trial Court, by an order dated March 28, 2023, rejected the Respondent’s request, noting that the investigation had revealed that the accused son had acquired huge disproportionate property, potentially kept in the name of his father.
The Respondent challenged this order before the Calcutta High Court, which, on October 4, 2024, set aside the freezing order.
The High Court relied on the Supreme Court’s decision in Ratan Babulal Lath v. State of Karnataka (2022), holding that as the PC Act is a special statute, freezing of accounts could only be effected under Section 18A of the Act and not Section 102 CrPC.
The State of West Bengal filed an appeal before the Supreme Court, challenging the High Court’s decision. The State argued that the High Court’s reliance on Ratan Babulal Lath was misplaced as it did not lay down any authoritative legal position binding under Article 141 of the Constitution.
The State contended that Section 18A of the PC Act and Section 102 CrPC function in distinct spheres.
It argued that Section 102 is a power exercised by police to secure evidence or property during an investigation without prior judicial approval.
In contrast, Section 18A applies a judicial procedure introduced through the Criminal Law Amendment Ordinance, which is more deliberative and follows sequential steps.
ALSO READ: Cash-for-Vote Case| ACB Action Completely Illegal : CM Revanth Reddy To Supreme Court
The Respondent, on the other hand, contended that Ratan Babulal Lath was a binding precedent, relied upon by other courts. He argued that the freezing of accounts by police under Section 102 CrPC did not serve any investigative purpose since banks had already supplied the required details.
The Respondent maintained that the PC Act is a complete code and that the procedure under Section 18A, introduced by the 2018 amendment, must be strictly followed for attachment of property.
The Supreme Court undertook a detailed analysis of the definitions of “seizure” and “attachment” and the procedural requirements under the respective laws.
The Court emphasized the distinction between the two, stating that Section 102 CrPC refers to “seizure,” whereas the Criminal Law Amendment Ordinance, applied via Section 18A PC Act, uses terms like “confiscation” and “attachment.”
The Court explained that the procedure under the Criminal Law Amendment Ordinance involves sequential steps, including an application to the District Judge, ad-interim attachment, notice to show cause, and making the order absolute.
This is contrasted with the simpler and immediate powers under Section 102 CrPC. The Court observed:
“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. In essence, we hold 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.”
Consequently, the Supreme Court concluded:
“Consequentially, the conclusion to be drawn is that the powers under Section 18A of the PC Act and Section 102, CrP.C. are not mutually exclusive.”
Regarding the precedent of Ratan Babulal Lath, the Supreme Court clarified that the judgment relied upon by the High Court does not constitute binding precedent.
Justice Karol wrote:
“In our considered view, Ratan Babulal Lath (supra) does not constitute binding precedent for want of… (ii) statements of the principles of law applicable to the legal problems disclosed by the facts; and (iii) judgment based on the combined effect of (i) and (ii) above… since it does not discuss the facts of the matter.”
The Court emphasized that for any judgment to be binding under Article 141, it must contain a clear discussion of the facts and the principles of law, and courts should not follow orders where facts and legal reasoning are inadequately disclosed.
The Supreme Court allowed the appeal filed by the State of West Bengal and set aside the High Court’s judgment. However, the Court noted that since the investigation had been completed and a chargesheet had been filed on May 13, 2024, the continued freezing of the accounts may or may not be necessary.
The Court directed:
“This may result into two situations, viz., (a) where the amount stands released; and (b) is yet to be released. If the situation is the former, then the respondent herein would either re-deposit the amount or furnish tangible security / bank guarantee of the like amount. This shall be done positively within three weeks from today.”
The Supreme Court left the parties’ rights for further follow-up action to be decided by the appropriate court.
Case Title:
The State of West Bengal vs. Anil Kumar Dey
5373 of 2025 (Arising out of SLP(Crl.) No. 1003/2025) 2025 INSC 1413
Read Judgement:
Click Here to Read More Reports On CrPC and PC Act
