SUPREME COURT: POLICE SEIZURE VITIATED ALTOGETHER DUE T0 DELAYED REPORTING TO MAGISTRATE SECTION 102(3) CRPC

The Supreme Court in the case Shento Varghese Versus Julfikar Husen And Ors. observed that the delay in reporting the seizure report by the police to the magistrate would not vitiate the act of seizure by police under Section 102(3) of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973.

- 

The bench comprising of Justice S. Narasimha and Justice Aravind Kumar in the case observed and has stated that although the law requires the police to send the seizure report to the magistrate 'forthwith', which came to be interpreted as 'as soon as possible' but the delay in sending the report to the magistrate would not vitiate the act of seizure by the police altogether.

The Judgement authored by Justice Aravind Kumar stated while deciding as to whether the police officer has properly discharged his obligation under Section 102(3) Code of Criminal Procedure, CrPC., the Magistrate would have to, firstly, examine whether the seizure was reported forthwith and in doing so, it ought to have regard to the interpretation of the expression, 'forthwith' as discussed above.

Thus, 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 and if the Magistrate finds that the delay has been properly explained, it would leave the matter at that.