Shento Varghese vs Julfikar Husen

2024 INSC 407 Reportable

IN THE SUPREME COURT OF INDIA

CRIMINAL APPELLATE JURISDICTION

CRIMINAL APPEAL NOS. 2531-2532 OF 2024 (@ SPECIAL LEAVE PETITION (Crl.) NOS.10504-10505 OF 2023)

SHENTO VARGHESE …APPELLANT

VERSUS

JULFIKAR HUSEN & ORS. ...RESPONDENTS

JUDGEMENT

Aravind Kumar J.

1. Leave granted.

2. These appeals have been preferred at the instance of the first

informant in Crime No.318 of 2022. By the impugned order dated

09.08.2023, passed in Crl. O.P. Nos.14029 & 14031 of 2023 and Crl. M.P.

Nos.8658 of 2023, the High Court of Madras has allowed the claim of the

Respondents-accused for de-freezing of their bank accounts. The High

Court has ordered for de-freezing on the specific ground that there was delay Signature Not Verified Digitally signed by Indu Marwah Date: 2024.05.13 on part of the police in reporting the seizure to the jurisdictional Magistrate. 14:49:14 IST Reason:

1

The facts in the instant case, which we shall advert to later below, have given

rise to following question of law:

What is the implication of non-reporting of the seizure forthwith to the jurisdictional Magistrate as provided under Section 102(3) Cr.P.C.?

more specifically;

Does delayed reporting of the seizure to the Magistrate vitiate the seizure order altogether?

That is the question which needs to be answered in these appeals.

3. Our research indicates that there is no authoritative pronouncement of this Court on this issue. If we turn to the pronouncements of the High Courts, there are decisions1 which have directly confronted this question.

Having reviewed these decisions, we find that, broadly, there are two prevailing strands of thought: one set of cases holding that delayed reporting to the Magistrate would, ipso facto, vitiate the seizure order; and the other view being that delayed reporting would constitute a mere irregularity and would not vitiate the seizure order.

4. The former view has been justified on the grounds that:

(a) the obligation [u/S 102(3) Cr.P.C.] to report the seizure forthwith to the Magistrate is mandatory and non-negotiable, breach of which would qualify as an illegality in following the prescribed statutory procedure2;

(b) the employment of the word ‘shall’ in Section 102(3) makes it clear that non-compliance of the mandatory requirement to report forthwith to the Magistrate goes to the root of the matter3;

1 See Table at Annexure A for a compilation of the 36 decisions on this issue. 2 Tmt. T .Subbulakshmi vs The Commissioner of Police 2013(4) MLJ (Crl) 41 3 The Meridian Educational Society Vs. The State of Telangana, 2022 1 ALT(Cri) 229 2

(c) the power to seize has been subjected to procedural requirements prescribed under Section 102(3) – and breach of complying with follow-up procedures would render the exercise of the main power to be without authority and jurisdiction – in that sense, the requirement to report is in the nature of a condition subsequent clause.4

5. The latter view has been sustained on the reasoning that:

a) The statutory provision provides no express consequence(s) for non-compliance and therefore, the procedural requirement is merely directory and not mandatory5;

b) The power to seize property connected with a crime is plenary and the obligation to intimate is a mere incidental exercise of power – breach of the latter cannot affect the former6;

c) the object of reporting is to facilitate disposal of property seized – prejudice caused by delayed reporting, if any, can always be demonstrated at the trial7;

d) Neither is there any obligation to seek prior leave before exercising the power to seize nor is there any statutorily provided consequence for non-compliance of the reporting obligation8;

e) No prejudice would be caused to the owner of a property by non-reporting of seizure to the concerned Magistrate during the investigation phase.

Therefore, it cannot be a case of illegality but such an omission may only be an irregularity.9

4 Dr Shashikant D. Karnik Vs. State of Maharashtra, 2008 CRL.L.J. 148 5 Ruqaya Akhter Vs Ut Through Crime Branch, CRM(M) No.223/2022, Jammu & Kashmir and Ladakh High Court.

6 Operation Mobilization India Vs. State of Telangana 2021 SCC OnLine TS 1529 7 Bharath Overseas Bank Vs. Minu Publication [1988] MLJ (Crl.) 309 8 Supra, 7 9 Supra, 5

3

6. In light of conflicting precedents operating across various High

Courts, we find it expedient and necessary to settle the conflict and bring in

uniformity in adjudication.

LEGISLATIVE HISTORY – A COMPARATIVE ANALYSIS

Criminal Relevant Provision Procedure Codes

188210 Section 523- Procedure by police upon seizure of property taken under Section 51 or stolen

The seizure by any Police-officer of property taken under Section 51, or alleged or suspected to have been stolen, or found under circumstances which create suspicion of the commission of any offence, shall be forthwith reported to a magistrate, who shall make such order as he thinks fit respecting the delivery of such property to the person entitled to the possession thereof, or, if such person cannot be ascertained, respecting the custody and production of such property.

189811 Section 550- Powers to police to seize property suspected to be stolen:

Any police-office may seize any property which may be alleged or suspected to have been stolen, or which may be found under circumstances which create suspicion of the commission of any offence. Such police-officer, if subordinate to the office in charge of a police station, shall forthwith report the seizure to that officer. 197312 102. Power of police officer to seize certain property.—(1) Any police officer may seize any property which may be alleged or suspected to have been stolen, or which may be found under circumstances which create suspicion of the commission of any offence.

(2) Such police officer, if subordinate to the officer in charge of a police station, shall forthwith report the seizure to that officer (3) Every police officer acting under sub-section (1) shall forthwith report the seizure to the Magistrate having jurisdiction and where the property seized is such that it cannot be conveniently transported to the Court, [or where there is difficulty in securing proper accommodation for the custody of such property, or where the continued retention of the property in police custody may not be considered necessary for the purpose of investigation,] he may give custody thereof to any person on his executing a bond undertaking to produce the property before the Court as and when required and to give effect to the further orders of the Court as to the disposal of the same:

10 Hereinafter referred to as “1882 Code”.

11 Hereinafter referred to as “1898 Code”.

12 Hereinafter referred to as “1973 Code”.

4 [Provided that where the property seized under sub-section (1) is subject to speedy and natural decay and if the person entitled to the possession of such property is unknown or absent and the value of such property is less than five hundred rupees, it may forthwith be sold by auction under the orders of the Superintendent of Police and the provisions of Sections 457 and 458 shall, as nearly as may be practicable, apply to the net proceeds of such sale.] 202313 106. (1) Any police officer may seize any property which may be alleged or suspected to have been stolen, or which may be found under circumstances which create suspicion of the commission of any offence.

(2) Such police officer, if subordinate to the officer in charge of a police station, shall forthwith report the seizure to that officer. (3) Every police officer acting under sub-section (1) shall forthwith report the seizure to the Magistrate having jurisdiction and where the property seized is such that it cannot be conveniently transported to the Court, or where there is difficulty in securing proper accommodation for the custody of such property, or where the continued retention of the property in police custody may not be considered necessary for the purpose of investigation, he may give custody thereof to any person on his executing a bond undertaking to produce the property before the Court as and when required and to give effect to the further orders of the Court as to the disposal of the same: Provided that where the property seized under sub- section (1) is subject to speedy and natural decay and if the person entitled to the possession of such property is unknown or absent and the value of such property is less than five hundred rupees, it may forthwith be sold by auction under the orders of the Superintendent of Police and the provisions of Sections 505 and 506 shall, as nearly as may be practicable, apply to the net proceeds of such sale.

7. The responsibility of the police officer to promptly inform the

Magistrate about the seizure can be historically traced to the 1882 Code.

Oddly enough, this provision was absent in the 1898 Code. In the 1898

Code, however, it was provided that if the seizing officer was below the rank

of an officer-in charge of a police station, then such officer was under a duty

to give information to his superior regarding the seized property. It appears

that the provision as it existed in the 1898 Code was retained as is in the

13 Hereinafter referred to as the “2023 Code”.

5 1973 Code. Sub-section (3) to Section 102 was inserted by way of an

amendment only in the year 1978. This amendment reintroduced the

reporting obligations of police officer to the Magistrate, as it originally

existed in the 1882 Code. It also empowered the seizing officer to give

custody of the seized property to any person, on such person executing a

bond undertaking to produce the property before the Court as and when

required. There was no provision in the 1973 Code nor the 1898 Code till

the insertion of sub-section (3) by an amendment in 1978, empowering the

police to take a bond from a person undertaking to produce the property

entrusted to him by the police later on before the Court. The law as it existed

then was that the bond could be entered before the Court but not in favour

of the police. While setting aside the order of forfeiture in regard to the bond

in favour of the police, this Court in Anwar Ahmad v State of UP14, pointed

out the lacuna in the 1973 Code and suggested the insertion of a suitable

provision. That is why this sub-section (3) empowering the police to execute

the bond under certain conditionalities came to be inserted by way of the

1978 Amendment. For the sake of completeness, it may be observed that

Section 102 Cr.P.C. in its present form has been retained as is in the 2023

Code, which is scheduled to come into force on 1st July 2024 and replace the

1973 Code.

14

AIR 1976 SC 680

6

8. The Notes on Clauses appended to the 1978 Bill had set out the

following reasons for inserting sub section (3) to Section 102 Cr.P.C.:

“Clause 10- Section 102 is being amended (1) to provide that the police officer shall forthwith report the seizure of any property under sub-section (1) to the Magistrate, as there is a lacuna in the Law and (2) to give effect to the observations of the Supreme Court made in Anwar Ahmad vs. the State of U.P. (AIR 1976 SC 680) that the police should be given the power to get a bond from the person to whom the property seized is entrusted, particularly in cases where a bulky property like elephant or car, is seized and the Magistrate is living at a great distance and it is difficult to produce the property seized before the Magistrate.”

9. The reason cited for inserting the amendment was to overcome a

‘lacuna’ in the law. What could have been the lacuna in the law that impelled

the insertion of this amendment?

10. In our view, the answer to this question can be derived by referring

to the provisions in Chapter XXXIV of the 1973 Code which is titled as

‘Disposal of Property’. Section 457 Cr.P.C. sets out the procedure to be

followed by police upon seizure of the property. Sub section (1) begin with

the words: ‘Whenever the seizure of property by any police officer is

reported to a Magistrate under the provisions of this Code, and such

property is not produced before a Criminal Court during an inquiry or

trial…..”. Similarly, we may refer to Section 459 Cr.P.C. which empowers

the Magistrate with the power to auction/sell seized property in certain

situations. It begins with the words: ‘If the person entitled to the possession

7 of such property is unknown or absent and the property is subject to speedy

and natural decay, or if the Magistrate to whom its seizure is reported is of

opinion that……”.

11. Both, Section 457 Cr.P.C. and Section 459 Cr.P.C. contemplates the

act of seizure by police to be reported to the Magistrate so that necessary

steps could be taken for its custody and disposal. However, the provision

[Section 102(1) Cr.P.C.] which conferred substantive power on the police to

seize property linked to a crime, did not impose on such officers a

consequent duty to report the seizures made to the Magistrate. Section 523

in the 1882 Code had coupled the power to seize property linked to the crime

and the duty to report forthwith the seizure to the Magistrate in the same

provision. Since the relevant provisions in the 1898 Code and the 1973 Code

provided only for the substantive power to seize and did not impose any duty

on such seizing officer to report to the Magistrate, there arose a need for

amendment. That appears to us to be the lacuna in the law which was sought

to be overcome. In fact, there are several decisions which indicate that the

purpose of reporting to the Magistrate is to ensure an order of the disposal

of the seized property either on superdari, or otherwise, during the pendency

of the case/investigations under Section 457 Cr.P.C. This further reinforces

our view regarding the lacuna which was sought to be fixed. Therefore, the

8 main object underlying the amendment appears to be a mere gap-filling

exercise and an attempt to fix a basic omission in legislative drafting.

12. It is in this background that we must consider whether ‘seizure

orders’ can be set at naught for non-compliance with the procedural

formality of reporting such seizure forthwith to the Magistrate.

13. This requires us to consider whether validity of the seizure order is

contingent on compliance with the reporting obligation? In our view, the

validity of the power exercised under Section 102(1) Cr.P.C. is not

dependent on the compliance with the duty prescribed on the police officer

under Section 102(3) Cr.P.C. The validity of the exercise of power under

Section 102(1) Cr.P.C. can be questioned either on jurisdictional grounds or

on the merits of the matter. That is to say, the order of seizure can be

challenged on the ground that the seizing officer lacked jurisdiction 15 to act

under Section 102(1) Cr.P.C. or that the seized item does not satisfy the

definition of ‘property’16 or on the ground that the property which was seized

could not have given rise to suspicion concerning the commission of a crime,

in order for the authorities to justify the seizure.17 The pre-requisite for

exercising powers under Section 102(1) is the existence of a direct link

between the tainted property and the alleged offence. It is essential that the

15 Nevada Properties (P) Ltd. Vs. State of Maharashtra & Anr. (2019) 20 SCC 119 16 Ms Swaran Sabharwal Vs. Commissioner of Police, 1990 (68) Comp Cas 652 Delhi (DB) 17 State of Maharashtra Vs. Tapas D. Neogy, 1999/INSC/417

9 properties sought to be seized under Section 102(1) of the Cr.P.C. must have

a direct or close link with the commission of offence in question.18

14. As stated hereinbefore, the obligation to report the seizure to the

Magistrate is neither a jurisdictional pre-requisite for exercising the power

to seize nor is the exercise of such power made subject to compliance with

the reporting obligation. Contrast this with Section 105E Cr.P.C., 1973

which provides for similar power of seizure and attachment of property.

While Section 105E(1) confers the substantive power to make seizure under

circumstances provided in that section, sub-section (2) of Section 105E

declares that the order passed under Section 105E(1) ‘shall have no effect

unless the said order is confirmed by an order of the said Court, within a

period of thirty days of its being made’. In that sense, the order of seizure,

for it to take effect and have legal force, is subjected to a further statutory

requirement of the seizure order being confirmed by an order of Court. It is

only upon passing of the confirmation order within the stipulated period

does the order of seizure take effect. Until then, it remains an order in form

but without having any legal force.

15. We find that there are certain other provisions19 in the 1973 Code

which place similar obligation(s) on the police officer to report their actions

18 Supra, 17.

19 See, Section 168 Cr.P.C.

10 to the jurisdictional Magistrate. For example, Section 157 Cr.P.C. provides

that ‘if, from information received or otherwise, an officer in charge of a

police station has reason to suspect the commission of an offence……he

shall forthwith send a report of the same to a Magistrate’. As in the case of

Section 102(3) Cr.P.C., Section 157 Cr.P.C. does not provide for any

consequence in the event there is failure to promptly comply with the

reporting obligation. It would be helpful to understand how this Court has

elucidated on the effect of such non-compliance in the context of Section

157 Cr.P.C. since the provision is nearly pari materia with Section 102(3).

16. It is now too well settled that delay in registration of FIR is no

ground for quashing of the FIR itself.20 It follows as a corollary that if delay

in registration of FIR is no ground to quash the FIR, then delay in forwarding

such FIR to the Magistrate can also afford no ground for nullification of the

FIR. In fact, this Court has gone to the extent of holding that unless serious

prejudice is demonstrated to have been suffered as against the accused, mere

delay in sending the FIR to the Magistrate by itself will not have any

deteriorating effect on the case of the prosecution.21 If prejudice is

demonstrated and the prosecution fails to explain the delay, then, at best, the

effect of such delay would only be to render the date and time of lodging the

20 Ravinder Kumar & Anr. Vs. State of Punjab, (2001) 7 SCC 690 21 Supra, 20.

11 FIR suspect and nothing more.22 Drawing from this analogy, the delay in

reporting the seizure to the Magistrate may, subject to proof of prejudice, at

best, dent the veracity of the prosecution case vis-à-vis the date, time and

occasion for seizure of the property. Since the proof of prejudice on part of

the accused and the explanation for delay on part of the prosecution can only

be demonstrated at trial, the effect of non-compliance becomes an issue to

be adjudicated at the time of appreciation of evidence. Moreover, this Court

has consistently held that even illegalities in the investigation (including

illegality in search and seizures) is no ground for setting aside the

investigation in toto23.

17. In the background of the aforesaid discussion, therefore, the line of

precedents which have taken the position that ‘seizure orders’ are vitiated

for delay in compliance with the reporting obligation are declared to be

manifestly erroneous and are accordingly, overruled. The relevant question

to be determined was not whether the duty of the police to report the seizure

to the Magistrate is mandatory or directory. Instead, what ought to have been

inquired into was whether the exercise of the seizure power was subjected

to compliance of reporting obligation, as illustrated in Section 105E Cr.P.C.

22

Bhajan Singh and Ors. vs. State of Haryana, 2011/INSC/422 23 HN Rishbud v. State of Delhi (1954) 2 SCC 934 12

18. Merely because we have held that non reporting of the seizure

forthwith by the police officer to the jurisdictional court would not vitiate

the seizure order, it would not mean that there would be no consequence

whatsoever as regards the police officer, upon whom the law has enjoined a

duty to act in a certain way. Since there is an obligation cast on the officer

to report the seizure forthwith, it becomes necessary to understand the

meaning of the expression forthwith as used in Section 102(3) CrPC. For,

without a clear understanding of the said expression, the Magistrate would

not be in a position to determine whether the obligation cast on the police

officer has been properly complied with. In this background, the expression

‘shall forthwith report the seizure to the Magistrate’ occurring in sub-

section (3) of the Section 102 requires to be examined.

19. The meaning of the word ‘forthwith’ as used in Section 102(3) has

not received judicial construction by this Court. However, this Court has

examined the scope and contours of this expression as it was used under the

Maintenance of Internal Security Act, 1971; Preventive Detention Act, 1950;

Section 157(1) of the Cr.P.C.; and Gujarat Prevention of Anti-Social

Activities Act, 1985 in the case of Sk. Salim v. State of West Bengal24, Alla 24 (1975) 1 SCC 653 (para 10 and 11)

13 China Apparao and Others v. State of Andhra Pradesh25 and Navalshankar

Ishwarlal Dave v. State of Gujarat26.

20. This Court, in Rao Mahmood Ahmad Khan v. Ranbir Singh27, has

held that the word ‘forthwith’ is synonymous with the word immediately,

which means with all reasonable quickness. When a statute requires

something to be done ‘forthwith’ or ‘immediately’ or even ‘instantly’, it

should probably be understood as allowing a reasonable time for doing it28.

21. The expression ‘forthwith’ has been defined in Black’s Law

Dictionary, 10th Edition as under:

“forthwith, adv. (14c) 1. Immediately; without delay. 2. Directly; promptly; within a reasonable time under the circumstances; with all convenient dispatch”

Wharton’s Law Lexicon, 17th Edition describes ‘forthwith’ as extracted:

Forthwith, When a defendant is ordered to plead forthwith, he must plead within twenty four hours. When a statute or rule of Court requires an act to be done ‘forthwith’, it means that the act is to be done within a reasonable time having regard to the object of the provision and the circumstances of the case [Ex parte Lamb, (1881) 19 Ch D 169; 2 Chit. Arch. Prac., 14th Edition]

22. From the discussion made above, it would emerge that the expression

‘forthwith’ means ‘as soon as may be’, ‘with reasonable speed and

25 (2002) 8 SCC 440 (para 9) 26 1993 Supp (3) SCC 754 (para 9) 27 1995 Supp (4) SCC 275 28 Bidya Deb Barma v. District Magistrate, 1968 SCC OnLine SC 82.

14 expedition’, ‘with a sense of urgency’, and ‘without any unnecessary delay’.

In other words, it would mean as soon as possible, judged in the context of

the object sought to be achieved or accomplished.

23. We are of the considered view that the said expression must receive

a reasonable construction and in giving such construction, regard must be

had to the nature of the act or thing to be performed and the prevailing

circumstances of the case. When it is not the mandate of the law that the act

should be done within a fixed time, it would mean that the act must be done

within a reasonable time. It all depends upon the circumstances that may

unfold in a given case and there cannot be a straight-jacket formula

prescribed in this regard. In that sense, the interpretation of the word

‘forthwith’ would depend upon the terrain in which it travels and would take

its colour depending upon the prevailing circumstances which can be

variable.

24. Therefore, in deciding whether the police officer has properly

discharged his obligation under Section 102(3) Cr.P.C., the Magistrate would

have to, firstly, examine whether the seizure was reported forthwith. In doing

so, it ought to have regard to the interpretation of the expression, ‘forthwith’

as discussed above. If it finds that the report was not sent forthwith, then it

must examine whether there is any explanation offered in support of the delay.

15 If the Magistrate finds that the delay has been properly explained, it would

leave the matter at that. However, if it finds that there is no reasonable

explanation for the delay or that the official has acted with deliberate

disregard/ wanton negligence, then it may direct for appropriate departmental

action to be initiated against such erring official. We once again reiterate that

the act of seizure would not get vitiated by virtue of such delay, as discussed

in detail herein above.

25. Having clarified the applicable legal position above, we now

proceed to consider the facts in instant case.

26. The Respondents-accused is said to have placed an order for

purchase of forty-seven Kerala Model Gold Chains from the Appellant-first

informant, who worked as a deliveryman in a company called ‘PR Gold’. In

consideration for the supply of gold chains, the Respondents had agreed to

provide gold bars of equivalent value. The allegations in the complaint

suggest that the exchange took place on 20.12.2022. Shortly thereafter, the

Appellant learns that gold bars handed over to him were fake. On this basis,

the Appellant approached the police and lodged the first information report.

On registration of the first information report, the police initiated

investigation and during such investigation, it was noticed that certain

monies to the tune of Rs.19,83,036/- were deposited in the bank accounts of

Accused 1 and 3. On 09.01.2023, the investigating officer wrote to the bank

16 and ordered for freezing of their bank accounts. The order of freezing was

reported to the Magistrate on 27.01.2023. The Respondents had

unsuccessfully approached29 the jurisdictional Magistrate for taking custody

of the seized bank accounts. The Respondents then approached the High

Court by filing an original petition under Section 482 Cr.P.C. and sought for

de-freezing of the bank accounts. The High Court vide the impugned order

has allowed the application of the Respondents-accused for de-freezing of

the bank accounts, and therefore set at naught the seizure order on the sole

ground that the order of seizure was not forthwith reported to the Magistrate.

27. The reasoning adopted by the High Court cannot be sustained in the

light of aforestated discussion. This takes us to the consequential question,

namely, whether at this distance of time, we ought to direct freezing of the

bank accounts afresh? The answer has to be in the negative, since

undisputedly by virtue of the impugned order, the bank accounts of the

respondents has been defreezed and resultantly, the Respondents would have

operated the accounts and amount of Rs.19,83,036/- which had been frozen

would have been withdrawn. The ends of justice would be met and the interest

of prosecution would be served if the Respondents are called upon, forthwith,

to execute a bond undertaking to deposit the amount (which has been thus far

withdrawn from the seized bank accounts) before the jurisdictional Court in

29 Application under Section 457 – Cr. M.C 2032 of 2023 was filed.

17 the event the Court were to return a finding of guilt against the accused

persons. The Respondents would have to undertake to deposit the amount

within four weeks from the date on which the Court passes an order of

conviction. It is needless to say that the bond executed would stand discharged

if the accused persons are acquitted at the end of trial.

28. With these observations, appeals are allowed in part.

ANNEXURE ‘A’

CASES WHERE COURTS HAVE HELD THAT BREACH OF REPORTING CONDITIONS IS ILLEGAL S.No CASE CITATION COURT 1. Manish Khandelwal And Ors vs 2019 SCC OnLine Bom Bombay The State of Maharashtra And Ors 1412 High Court

2. V Plus Technology Pvt Ltd vs The 2022/DHC/001595 Delhi HC State (Nct Of Delhi) & Anr

3. Muktaben M. Mashru vs State Of 2019 SCC OnLine Del Delhi HC Nct Of Delhi & Anr 11509

4. Tmt.T.Subbulakshmi vs The 2013(4)MLJ(Crl)41 Madras High Commissioner of Police Court

5. Ms Swaran Sabharwal Versus 1990 (68) Comp Cas 652 Delhi High Commissioner of Police Delhi (DB) Court 6. Uma Maheshwari Vs. The State 2013 SCC OnLine Mad Madras HC Rep. By Inspector of Police, 3829 Central Crime Branch, Egmore, Channai; Criminal O.P. No.15467 of 2013 7. The Meridian Educational Society 2022 1 ALT(Cri) 229 Telangana Vs. The State of Telangana; Writ HC Petition No.21106 of 2021 8. Padmini vs. Inspector of Police, 2008(3) Crimes 716 Madras HC Tirunelveli (Mad.)

18 9. R. Chandrasekar vs. Inspector of 2003 Criminal Law Madras HC Police, Salem Journal 294 10. Lathifa Vs. State of Karnataka 2012 Cri. L.J. 3487 Karnataka High Court 11. B. Ranganathan Vs. State and Ors 2003 Crl.L.J 2779 Madras HC 12. Shashikant D. Karnik Vs. The State II(2007)BC337 Bombay HC of Maharashtra 13. Karthika Agencies Export House vs W.P.No.17953 of 2021 Madras High The Commissioner of Police Court 14. S. Ganapathi Vs. State and Ors. Crl.O.P.No.800 of 2014 Madras HC

15. R. Sivaraj Vs. State of Tamil Nadu Criminal O.P.Nos.576 Madras HC and 577 of 2013 16. Shri. Vilas S/o. Prabhakar Dange Criminal Writ Petition Bombay HC Vs. State of Maharashtra No. 1033/2017 17. Purbanchal Road Service, Gauhati 1991CRILJ2798 Gauhati High VS State Court 18. S. T. Cleopatra VS Commissioner W.P.No.17953 of 2021 Madras HC of Police, Chennai City, Vepery, Chennai 19. Kiruthika Vs. State rep. by Crl.O.P.No.14733 of Madras HC Inspector of Police and another 2021 20. Dr.Shashikant D. Karnik Vs. State 2008 CRL.L.J. 148 Bombay HC Of Maharashtra 21. Ali Trading and Anr v The State of WA 296/2019 Gauhati HC Assam

22. 2B. Kavitha v. Inspector of Police & Crl.OP. NO. 14824/2019 Madras HC 4ors .

CASES WHERE THE COURT HAS HELD THE REPORTING CONDITIONS ARE DIRECTORY AND NOT ILLEGAL

23. Dattasai (Kisan Seva Kendra) VS 2022 6 ALD 702 Telangana State of Telangana HC

24. M/S SJS Gold Pvt. Ltd. Thru. Criminal Misc. Writ Allahabad Director Sunil Jaihind Salunkhe & Petition No. - 3511 Of High Court Anr V. State of UP 2022

25. Amit Singh vs State of U.P. And Criminal Misc. Writ Allahabad Anr. Petition No. - 11201 Of High Court 202

26. Ruqaya Akhter Vs Ut Through CRM(M) No.223/2022 The Jammu Crime Branch & Kashmir

19 and Ladakh High Court

27. Narottam Singh Dhillon and Criminal Misc. No.43768 Punjab-

another vs. State of Punjab of 2004 Haryana High Court 28. Vinoshkumar Ramachandran 2011(1) MWN (Cr) 497 Bombay HC Valluvar Vs. The State of Maharashtra 29. C.Aranganayagam Vs. State by the 1999 SCC OnLine Mad Madras HC Director of Vigilance and Anti- 463 corruption, Erode and another 30. M/S. Ap Product vs State Of AIR ONLINE 2020 TEL Telangana Telangana on 3 December, 2020 135 High Court 31. Mohd. Maqbool Ahmed @ Mateen 1996(3) ALT215 Andhra High And Anr. vs The Deputy Court Commissioner Of Police 32. State of Manipur v Canning 2021 SCC OnLine Mani Manipur HC Keishing 272 33. M.S. Jaggi vs Subaschandra 1977 CRILJ 1902 Orissa High Mohapatra Court

34. Bharath Overseas Bank v. Minu Pu [1988] MLJ (Crl.) 309 Madras HC blication

35. Dr. Shaik Haseena v State of 2020 SCC OnLine TS Telangana Telangana 2851 HC

36. Operation Mobilization India v. 2021 SCC OnLine TS Telangana State of Telangana 1529: (2021) 1 HLT 81 HC

….…………………………….J. (Pamidighantam Sri Narasimha)

…….………………………….J. (Aravind Kumar)

New Delhi, May 13, 2024

20