Piyush Sharma Vs State of West Bengal & Anr. (Calcutta High Court)
The Calcutta High Court examined the scope of Section 107 of the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita (BNSS) in a case involving attachment of properties alleged to represent proceeds of crime. The petitioner had lodged a complaint alleging misappropriation of over ₹15 crore in cash and medicines worth ₹93 lakh. During the investigation, the Investigating Officer (IO) sought attachment of certain properties under Section 107 BNSS, and the Magistrate ordered attachment after the accused failed to respond to show-cause notices within the stipulated period.
The attachment order was challenged before the Revisional Court, which held that the IO had merely “assumed” and “apprehended” that the properties were proceeds of crime. The Revisional Court observed that these expressions were fundamentally different from the statutory requirement of having “reason to believe.” It further found that the Magistrate had directed the IO to attach the properties, although the power of attachment rests with the Magistrate, and that notice had not been served on the lessor of certain leasehold properties despite Section 107 referring to “such person” and “any other person,” thereby requiring notice to persons claiming rights over the property. Consequently, the attachment order was set aside.
