Seizure and Attachment Are Not Twins: Supreme Court Holds Police Can Freeze Bank Accounts in PC Act Cases Using CrPC Section 102

“Seizure and attachment may feel the same to the affected party—but in the eyes of law, they walk different paths. One is swift and investigative, the other is deliberate and judicial. Neither excludes the other.” - In a significant judgment with major implications for corruption investigations, the Supreme Court overruled a Calcutta High Court verdict that had held police powerless to freeze bank accounts under Section 102 of the Criminal Procedure Code (CrPC) when dealing with Prevention of Corruption Act (PC Act) offences. The apex court clarified that police can indeed seize and freeze property, including bank accounts, under Section 102 CrPC, even in PC Act cases, and such powers are not ousted by the separate mechanism of attachment under Section 18A of the PC Act read with the Criminal Law Amendment Ordinance, 1944.

“Attachment Is Judicial; Seizure Is Investigative”: Distinct Paths with Different Purposes

The bench of Justice Sanjay Karol and Justice Prashant Kumar Mishra held that the power to attach property under Section 18A of the PC Act and the power to seize property under Section 102 CrPC are distinct, operate in separate domains, and are not mutually exclusive.

“The difference between the two processes is clearly exhibited. In essence, we hold that the power of seizure and attachment are separate and distinct, even if... the effect is same/similar.” [Para 11]

The Court explained that seizure under Section 102 CrPC is an immediate, police-initiated action aimed at preserving evidence or preventing the misuse of suspected property, while attachment under Section 18A is a court-driven, procedural safeguard designed to eventually lead to confiscation after due process.

“Attachment is a consequence which is given effect to after due application of mind and compliance with procedure. It is not a decision that can be taken on the spur of the moment.” [Para 11]

The Assets of a Corrupt Officer, Held in Family Names

The case stemmed from an investigation into Prabir Kumar Dey Sarkar, a senior police officer in West Bengal accused of amassing wealth disproportionate to his income over a decade. During the probe, the police froze multiple fixed deposit accounts held by his father, Anil Kumar Dey, suspecting the use of family members as benamis to park illegal assets.

Anil Kumar Dey moved the Sessions Court for de-freezing, citing age and medical conditions. The court refused, noting the inability to explain the source of funds and ongoing investigation. However, the Calcutta High Court reversed this, holding that only Section 18A of the PC Act (invoking the 1944 Ordinance) could be used for freezing assets in such cases—not Section 102 CrPC.

“High Court Erred, Ratan Lath Not Binding”: Apex Court Underscores Precedential Limits

The High Court had relied on the Supreme Court’s ruling in Ratan Babulal Lath v. State of Karnataka (2022), which observed that the PC Act is a self-contained code and excluded CrPC powers like Section 102. But the Supreme Court rejected that reading:

“We would state that in the absence of a detailed discussion made of the scheme of the Act... it cannot be stated that the conclusion arrived at [in Ratan Babulal] constitutes ratio decidendi... it does not constitute binding precedent.” [Para 15]

Defining “Self-Contained Codes” – PC Act Doesn’t Make the Cut

The Court delved into what it means for a statute to be a “self-contained code”. Referencing the IBC, Industrial Disputes Act, and SARFAESI, the Court observed that for a statute to exclude other laws:

“A Code should be comprehensive, dealing with all aspects... The reliance of the statute upon general laws... should be limited as far as possible.” [Para 13]

By contrast, the PC Act does not establish exclusive procedures for seizure or investigation, and hence does not oust Section 102 CrPC.

"Seizure Still Valid Even If Delay in Reporting" – Court Upholds Practical Approach

The Court addressed the requirement in Section 102(3) that seizures be reported “forthwith” to a Magistrate. Citing Shento Varghese v. Julfikar Husen (2024), the Court held:

“The act of seizure would not get vitiated by virtue of such delay... the Magistrate must examine if the delay is explained or wanton.” [Para 11]

This interpretation reinforces seizure as a dynamic, flexible tool in the hands of investigating authorities, not easily defeated by procedural lapses.

“Investigative and Judicial Powers Can Coexist” – Both Tracks Valid

In rejecting the respondent’s argument that the 2018 amendment to the PC Act, which added Section 18A, made Section 102 inapplicable, the Court clarified:

“The two provisions... operate in distinct and/or complementary spheres... One cannot be construed as inconsistent with the other or barring the exercise of the other.” [Para 6]

The Court laid out the step-by-step procedures under the Criminal Law Amendment Ordinance, PMLA, and Income Tax Act, highlighting the structured, time-consuming nature of attachment, in contrast to the quick response nature of seizure.

Direction to Re-Deposit Funds or Give Security

Acknowledging that investigation was over and the charge sheet had been filed, the Court noted that the freezing may not remain necessary—but its legality stood. If the frozen funds were already released due to the High Court’s order (which was later stayed), the respondent must re-deposit them or provide tangible security:

“If the amount stands released, the respondent shall either re-deposit the amount or furnish tangible security/bank guarantee of like amount... within three weeks.” [Conclusion]

Key Takeaways from the Judgment:

• Section 102 CrPC and Section 18A PC Act serve different purposes: seizure supports investigation; attachment is for eventual confiscation.

• Police can freeze bank accounts during PC Act investigations using Section 102 CrPC, even if the PC Act has its own attachment mechanism.

• Ratan Babulal Lath is not binding precedent; it lacks detailed analysis of the PC Act and CrPC interaction.

• Delay in reporting seizure to Magistrate does not automatically vitiate the act, provided it’s not deliberate or negligent.

• The PC Act is not a self-contained code to the exclusion of CrPC provisions.

Date of Judgment: 10 December 2025