In Brief
This case addresses whether delayed reporting of a seizure to the Magistrate under Section 102(3) of the Criminal Procedure Code vitiates the seizure order. The Supreme Court held that the validity of a seizure under Section 102(1) does not depend on compliance with the reporting obligation in Section 102(3). Delayed reporting is not a jurisdictional defect but a procedural irregularity. The Court interpreted 'forthwith' as requiring reasonable speed judged by circumstances and the provision's object. The seized bank accounts were not re-frozen as the amounts had been withdrawn, but the accused were directed to furnish a bond to deposit the withdrawn amount if convicted, with the bond discharged upon acquittal.
The lawyer headnote and full judgment text are available to registered users.