Supreme Court – Daily Orders
The State Of Jammu And Kashmir vs Surain Singh Langeh on 23 July, 2025
Author: Rajesh Bindal
Bench: Rajesh Bindal
IN THE SUPREME COURT OF INDIA
CRIMINAL APPELLATE JURISIDICTION
CRIMINAL APPEAL NO.1122 OF 2011
STATE OF JAMMU AND KASHMIR … APPELLANT(S)
VERSUS
SURAIN SINGH LANGEH …RESPONDENT(S)
ORDER
1. No one was present for the appellant when the appeal was
taken up for hearing.
2. The State has filed the present appeal challenging the
order1 passed by the High Court 2 in the criminal revision 3. The High
Court, vide the aforesaid order, upheld the order passed by the Trial
Court.
3. Facts in brief are that an FIR No.09 of 2001 was registered
under sections 420, 406 and 120-B of the Ranbir Penal Code, against
the management of M/s United Endowment India Ltd, one of the
directors of which was Bashir Ahmad Manhas. The respondent
purchased the property in question from Bashir Ahmad Manhas vide
registered sale deed dated 03.05.2003 and set up his office. On
Signature Not Verified
Digitally signed by
ANITA MALHOTRA
Date: 2025.08.13
18:22:51 IST
Reason:
1 Dated 07.03.2006
2 High Court of Jammu and Kashmir at Jammu
3 Cr. Rev. No.23/2005
1
30.07.2003, police came to the property in question and seized the
same.
4. The respondent filed an application seeking release of the
property in question before Trial Court. Vide order dated 10.03.2005,
the Trial Court released the property on supurdnama of the
respondent along with a direction that no third-party interest should
be created in the property.
5. The question arose as to whether the appellant/State had
power to seize immovable property, as the seizure in the present
case was of a shop/office situated at the Second Floor at K.C. Plaza,
Jammu. Though, the Trial Court had directed for release of the
property in question on supurdari with the respondent/applicant,
however, the High Court opined that immovable property could not
be seized and the same was directed to be released to the
respondent.
6. It is evident from a perusal of the impugned order passed
by the High Court that the learned Advocate General had placed
reliance on the judgment of this Court in State of Maharashstra v.
Tapas D. Neogy4 which did not directly deal with the issue in
question as the issue under consideration therein was as to whether
the bank account of an accused was property within the meaning of
Section 102 Cr.P.C.
4 (1999) 7 SCC 685 : 1999 INSC 417
2
7. Legal issue as to whether immovable property could be
seized or not, was gone into, on a reference made to a Three-Judge
Bench of this Court in Nevada Properties Private Limited,
Through its Directors versus State of Maharashtra and
another5. This Court opined that in exercise of power under
Section 102 Cr.P.C., immovable property could not be attached,
seized or sealed. Para ‘34’ of the aforesaid judgment is extracted
below:
“34. In view of the aforesaid discussion, the reference
is answered by holding that the power of a police officer
under Section 102 of the Code to seize any property, which
may be found under circumstances that create suspicion of
the commission of any offence, would not include the power
to attach, seize and seal an immovable property.”
8. The earlier judgment of this Court in Tapas D. Neogy
(supra) was distinguished.
9. In view of the fact that the legal issue involved in this
appeal has been answered by the larger Bench of this Court, we do
not find any merit in the present appeal and the same is accordingly
dismissed.
5 (2019) 20 SCC 119 : 2019 INSC 1077
3
10. Pending applications, if any, shall also stand disposed of.
………………………………….J.
(RAJESH BINDAL)
………………………………….J.
(MANMOHAN)
NEW DELHI;
JULY 23, 2025.
4
IN THE SUPREME COURT OF INDIA
CRIMINAL APPELLATE JURISIDICTION
CRIMINAL APPEAL NO.1487 OF 2019
THE STATE OF MAHARASHTRA … APPELLANT(S)
VERSUS
VISHAL S/o SHRISHAIL LOKAPUR & ANOTHER …RESPONDENT(S)
ORDER
1. The present appeal arises out of a judgment 6 passed by
the High Court7 wherein it was opined that the investigating officer
in a criminal case is not free to seize/attach any immovable property
belonging to the respondents, where the respondent no.1 was not
named as accused. While doing so the High Court had placed
reliance on a Full Bench decision of the High Court in Sudhir
Vasant Karhataki versus State of Maharashtra & others8.
2. The judgment of the Full Bench of the High Court, as
referred to above was the subject matter of challenge before this
Court in State of Maharashtra & others versus Sudhir Vasant
Karhataki etc. etc.9.
3. On a reference to a larger Bench, the legal issue involved
regarding attachment of an immovable property was answered
6 Dated 17.09.2012 in W.P. No.1887 of 2012
7 High Court of Judicature at Bombay
8 2011 All.M.R. (CRI.) 96
9 Criminal Appeal No(s).1482-85 of 2019
5
against the State in Nevada Properties Private Limited,
Through its Directors versus State of Maharashtra and
another10.
3.1 This Court opined that in exercise of power under Section
102 Cr.P.C., an immovable property could not be attached, seized or
sealed. Para ‘34’ of the aforesaid judgment is extracted below:
“34. In view of the aforesaid discussion, the
reference is answered by holding that the power of a police
officer under Section 102 of the Code to seize any property,
which may be found under circumstances that create
suspicion of the commission of any offence, would not
include the power to attach, seize and seal an immovable
property.”3.2 Other appeals were also listed before the larger Bench of
this Court. However, after expressing opinion on the question
referred, the matters were sent back to the appropriate Bench for
final disposal. Finally, the appeal11 in Nevada Properties (supra)
was dismissed by this Court on 06.05.2022.
4. Meaning thereby, the views expressed by the Full Bench of
the High Court Sudhir Vasant Karhataki (supra) was affirmed by
this Court. Even Criminal Appeal No(s).1482-85 of 2019 were
disposed of in terms of order dated 06.05.2022 passed in Criminal
10 (2019) 20 SCC 119: 2019 INSC 1077
11 Criminal Appeal No.1481 of 20196
Appeal No(s).1481 and 86 of 2019 vide order dated 01.08.2022.
5. The fact that the legal issue involved in the present appeal
has been decided against the appellant/State, is not disputed by the
learned counsel for the appellant.
6. In view of the aforesaid facts, we do not find any merit in
the present appeal. The same is accordingly dismissed.
7. Pending applications, if any, shall also stand disposed of.
………………………………….J.
(RAJESH BINDAL)
………………………………….J.
(MANMOHAN)
NEW DELHI;
JULY 23, 2025
7
ITEM NO.105 COURT NO.17 SECTION II-C
S U P R E M E C O U R T O F I N D I A
RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS
Criminal Appeal No(s). 1122/2011
STATE OF JAMMU AND KASHMIR Appellant(s)
VERSUS
SURAIN SINGH LANGEH Respondent(s)
(IA No. 5826/2007 – STAY APPLICATION)
WITH Crl.A. No. 1487/2019
(IA No. 10070/2013 – exemption from filing certified copy
IA No. 10071/2013 – EXEMPTION FROM FILING O.T.)
Date : 23-07-2025 These matters were called on for hearing today.
CORAM :
HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE RAJESH BINDAL
HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE MANMOHANFor Appellant(s) :
Mr. Aaditya Aniruddha Pande, AOR (Not present)
Mr. Parth Awasthi, Adv.
Mr. Pashupathi Nath Razdan, AOR
For Respondent(s) :
Ms. Sangeeta Kumar, AOR
UPON hearing the counsel the Court made the following
O R D E RCriminal Appeal No.1122 of 2011
The appeal is dismissed in terms of the signed
order.
Pending application also stands disposed of.
8
Criminal Appeal No.1487 of 2019The appeal is dismissed in terms of the signed
order.
Pending applications also stand disposed of.
(ANITA MALHOTRA) (AKSHAY KUMAR BHORIA) AR-CUM-PS COURT MASTER
(Two separate signed orders are placed on the file.)
9
[ad_1]
Source link