CrPC Section 105-C attachment powers do not extend to property arising from ordinary local offences.

The petitioners challenged an order dated 30 November 2022 attaching their property in Crime No. 66/2022 of Panambur Police Station.

The petition was brought under Articles 226 and 227 of the Constitution read with Section 482 CrPC.

Whether the Magistrate could attach the petitioners’ property under the relevant provisions of Chapter VII-A of the CrPC in connection with the local offences in Crime No. 66/2022.

Whether the attachment order dated 30 November 2022 should be quashed in light of State of Madhya Pradesh v. Balram Mihani [(2010) 2 SCC 602].

Section 105-C CrPC provides for attachment or forfeiture of property derived from the commission of an offence, within the framework of Chapter VII-A.

In State of Madhya Pradesh v. Balram Mihani, (2010) 2 SCC 602, the Supreme Court held that Chapter VII-A concerns specified offences having international ramifications and reciprocal arrangements with contracting States; it is not an ordinary law for attaching property connected with local offences committed in India.

The petitioners relied on Balram Mihani to argue that Chapter VII-A did not authorise attachment of property in a case involving local offences.

The High Court recorded that the case was materially akin to Balram Mihani and that the respondents did not dispute the stated legal position. Applying that precedent, the Court held that the Magistrate’s attachment order could not be sustained in law. It declined to express any view on the merits of the underlying criminal proceedings, so as not to prejudice the parties at trial.

The decision did not determine the merits of the criminal case.