In Brief
A police inspector was investigated for possessing assets disproportionate to his known income under the Prevention of Corruption Act. During investigation, his father's bank accounts were frozen under Section 102 of the Criminal Procedure Code. The High Court set aside the freezing, holding that only Section 18A of the PC Act governs asset attachment in corruption cases. The Supreme Court disagreed, ruling that Section 102 CrPC and Section 18A PC Act operate in distinct spheres—the former for investigative seizure without judicial approval, the latter for special post-investigation attachment with procedural safeguards. Bank accounts are valid subjects of seizure. The Court also held that Ratan Babulal Lath lacked comprehensive reasoning and is not a binding precedent. The appeal was allowed and the freezing orders restored.
The lawyer headnote and full judgment text are available to registered users.