Legal Provisions Involved: Sections 94, 106 and 107 of the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023 , Sections 316(2), 316(5) and 318(4) of the Bharatiya Nagarik Nyaya Sanhita, 2023, Articles 19(1)(g), 21 and 300A of the Constitution of India.
Judgement by: High Court of Karnataka at Bengaluru
Judge/Bench: Hon’ble Mr. Justice Suraj Govindaraj
Facts
A bank detected that its employee had stolen gold ornaments pledged by customers and replaced them with spurious articles. The accused subsequently pledged the stolen gold with IIFL Finance Ltd to obtain loans. Further, the notices issued under Section 94 BNSS were challenged.
Issues raised
- Whether a pledgee can refuse production of alleged stolen property on grounds of being a secured creditor
- Whether investigating officers can seize gold articles during investigation without Magistrate’s prior approval.
Key legal provisions
Sections 94, 106 and 107 of the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023, Sections 316(2), 316(5) and 318(4) of the Bharatiya Nagarik Nyaya Sanhita, 2023,1 Articles 19(1)(g), 21 and 300A of the Constitution of India.
Arguments
The petitioner argued that seizure without the Magistrate’s approval violated Articles 19(1)(g), 21 and 300A of the Constitution. On the other hand, the Respondent argued that the gold articles were stolen property belonging to the Bank’s customers, and IIFL Finance, cannot claim protection as a secured creditor.
Judgement
The Court dismissed the writ petition, holding that a notice under Section 94 BNSS merely requires production and does not amount to seizure. The petitioner was directed to produce the gold articles before the investigating officer.
Click here to VIEW the full judgement.
