Section 105 CrPC Not Mandatory for Service of Notice in Criminal Revision: Calcutta High Court

“There is no statutory requirement under Section 105 that mandates sending notice in every revision application” –  Calcutta High Court delivered a ruling clarifying the scope of Section 105 of the Code of Criminal Procedure (CrPC). Justice Bibhas Ranjan De held that the provision, which governs cross-border search, seizure, warrants and attachment of property, cannot be stretched to impose a universal requirement of notice in all criminal revision proceedings, even when a foreign complainant is involved.

UBS Switzerland AG had initiated proceedings alleging misappropriation of pledged goods worth ₹55 crores. Despite police filing closure reports, the Magistrate rejected them and ordered further investigation. The accused challenged that order before the Sessions Court.

The Sessions Judge initially directed issuance of notice under Section 105 CrPC, but later recalled it, holding that the complainant, already represented through counsel, did not require fresh notice through diplomatic channels. UBS challenged this before the High Court, contending that as a Swiss entity, service of notice could only be lawfully effected through Section 105 mechanisms.

Justice Bibhas Ranjan De rejected the bank’s argument, clarifying the limited ambit of the section: “The provision confers a specific, guided and controlled power to authorities for executing certain processes, particularly relating to search, seizure, issuance of warrant and attachment of property with built-in safeguards… It is not an unguided or arbitrary power.”

He stressed that the section cannot be interpreted to create an obligation of notice in every revision matter: “There is no statutory requirement under Section 105 that mandates sending notice to an opposite party/defacto complainant residing outside the territory of India in each and every revision application.”

At the same time, the Court disapproved of the Sessions Judge’s reasoning that the presence of counsel was itself enough, remarking: “Mere representation by counsel does not substitute or waive the necessity of valid notice as prescribed by law.”

However, since UBS was in fact served by registered post at its correct address, the Court held that no prejudice had been caused.

The Court concluded that non-invocation of Section 105 CrPC could not invalidate the proceedings: “Section 105 CrPC cannot be said to be applicable in case of service of notice to an opposite party/defacto complainant in criminal revision… the instant revision application, being devoid of merits, stands dismissed.”

This judgment sets an important precedent that Section 105 CrPC is confined to matters of international search, seizure and warrants, and not a mandatory notice mechanism in every criminal revision involving a foreign party. The Calcutta High Court struck a careful balance by warning that valid service cannot be casually substituted by a lawyer’s appearance, while at the same time holding that “failure to invoke Section 105 does not ipso facto vitiate criminal revision proceedings.”

Date of Decision: 21 August 2025