* THE HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE A.RAMALINGESWARA RAO WRIT PETITION No.7082 of 2007 % 11.11.2014 Between:
Smt.Karreddula Aruna Devi.
… Petitioner AND Branch Manager, Andhra Bank P.G.R.L.C.Jr.College Branch, Vikasnagar, Dilsukhnagar, Hyderabad, And others.
…Respondents Counsel for petitioners: Sri P.Pandurang Rao Counsel for the Respondents : GP for Home Sri N.Satchidanand < Gist:
> Head Note:
? CITATIONS:
1. 1994 (1) ALT (Crl.) 119 (Karn.)
2. 1996 (3) ALT 215 (DB)
3. (1999) 7 SCC 685 THE HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE A.RAMALINGESWARA RAO WRIT PETITION No.7082 of 2007 ORDER:
Heard the learned Counsel for the petitioner, learned Counsel for second respondent and the learned Government Pleader for respon Nos.3 and 4.
2. The petitioner states that she deposited an amount of Rs.3,10,0 in her bank account in the first respondent bank for the purpose medical treatment to her husband. The said amount was taken f identifiable persons. When she wanted to withdraw the money 13.07.2000 it was informed by the first respondent that a written req was made by the Police Inspector, Saidabad, Hyderabad – fo respondent, to freeze the said amount by letter dated 20.01.2000. As the said communication of the fourth respondent, the said amount part of booty in Crime No.3 of 2000 in respect of which an FIR lodged with the XII Metropolitan Magistrate, Hyderabad, showing petitioner as accused No.5. It was alleged that the said amount given by the son of the petitioner, who was another accused and amount was deposited in the bank account of the petitioner. The husb of the petitioner died on 30.11.2000. Challenging the letter d 20.01.2000 of the fourth respondent to the first respondent, the pre Writ Petition was filed.
3. The second respondent filed a counter affidavit stating that petitioner is the mother of accused No.1 and accused No.6 is daughter-in-law of the petitioner. Accused Nos.1, 2 and 3 with connivance of accused No.4, who was the attender in the State Ban Hyderabad, Hindupur Branch, stole the demand draft book and by for the signature of bank officials utilized the forged demand drafts and m purchases of two Maruthi cars, air tickets, gold jewellery, clot electronic items and concealed some jewellery and amounts with petitioner, who is accused No.5. Though the trial Court initially acqui accused Nos.2 and 5 and convicted accused No.1, the appeals prefe by accused Nos.1 and 4 in Criminal Appeal Nos.211 of 2010 and 21 2010 on the file of the learned III Additional Metropolitan Sessions Ju Hyderabad, were remanded by judgment dated 19.10.2010 for fresh tr In view of the same, all the accused have to face the trial.
4. It is submitted by the learned Counsel for the petitioner that free of amount is different from seizure in exercise of powers conferred un Section 102(1) of the Code of Criminal Procedure, and hence the le issued by the fourth respondent could not have been acted upon. relied on the judgment of the Karnataka High Court in M/s.Mal
[1]
Construction Company, Shimoga v. State of Karnataka . On other hand, learned Government Pleader relied on a Division Be decision of this Court in Mohd.Maqbool Ahmed @ Mateen v.
Deputy Commissioner of Police, Special Investigation Te
[2]
Hyderabad and the decision of the Supreme Court in State
[3]
Maharashtra v. Tapas D.Neogy .
5. The facts in the case are admitted. The amount of Rs.3,10,0 lying to the credit of the savings bank account of the petitioner sought to be frozen by the fourth respondent through a letter d 20.01.2000, which is challenged in the present Writ Petition. The le was issued for freezing the said amount on the ground that it forms of the booty in Crime No.3 of 2000 and the petitioner was arrayed accused No.5. The case is undergoing fresh trial after remand from appellate Court.
6. Now, the point for consideration is whether the fourth respon has the authority to order freezing of the bank account instead of sei under Section 102(1) of the Code of Criminal Procedure.
7. Section 102 of the Code of Criminal Procedure reads as follows:
“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, 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.”
8. The issue raised had conflicting opinions among various Courts. The Allahabad, Karnataka, Gauhati and Delhi High Courts that the Police have no power to freeze a bank account under Section of the Code of Criminal Procedure, whereas the Madras High Court that the bank account is a property capable of being seized under Sec 102 of the Code of Criminal Procedure by the Investigating Officer. held that the act of preventing the customer from exercising any r over the bank balance constitutes seizure of the bank balance, whic ordinary parlance is described as ‘freezing’. The consequences that from freezing a bank balance following a prohibitory order are the sa as those that flow from the physical removal of any movable prope following a seizure. The above decisions were considered by a Divi Bench of this Court in Mohd.Maqbool Ahmed @ Mateen’s case (su and this Court agreed with the decision of the Madras High Court disagreed with the views expressed by the Allahabad, Karnataka, Gau and Delhi High Courts.
9. However, the issue was considered by the Supreme Court in Ta D.Neogy’s case (supra), wherein all the decisions cited above, ex the Division Bench decision of this Court were considered and it was as follows:
“Having considered the divergent views taken by different High Courts with regard to the power of seizure under Section 102 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, and whether the bank account can be held to be `property' within the meaning of said Section 102(1), we see no justification to give any narrow interpretation to the provisions of the Criminal Procedure Code. It is well known that corruption in public offices has become so rampant that it has become difficult to cope up with the same. Then again the time consumed by the Courts in concluding the trials is another factor which should be borne in mind in interpreting the provisions of Section 102 of the Criminal Procedure Code and the underlying object engrafted therein, inasmuch as if there can be no order of seizure of the bank account of the accused then the entire money deposited in a bank which is ultimately held in the trial to be the outcome of the illegal gratification, could be withdrawn by the accused and the Courts would be powerless to get the said money which has any direct link with the commission of the offence committed by the accused as a public officer. We are, therefore, persuaded to take the view that the bank account of the accused or any of his relation is `property' within the meaning of Section 102 of the Criminal Procedure Code and a police officer in course of investigation can seize or prohibit the operation of the said account if such assets have direct links with the commission of the offence for which the police officer is investigating into. The contrary view expressed by Karnataka, Gauhati and Allahabad High Courts, does not represent the correct law. It may also be seen that under the Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988, in the matter of imposition of fine under sub-section (2) of Section 13, the legislatures have provided that the Courts in fixing the amount of fine shall take into consideration the amount or the value of the property, which the accused person has obtained by committing the offence or where the conviction is for an offence referred to in clause (e) of sub- section(1) of Section 13, the pecuniary resources or property for which the accused person is unable to account satisfactorily. The interpretation given by us in respect of the power of seizure under Section 102 of the Criminal Procedure Code is in accordance with the intention of the legislature engrafted in Section 16 of the Prevention of Corruption Act referred to above. In the aforesaid premises, we have no hesitation to come to the conclusion that the High Court of Bombay committed error in holding that the police officer could not have seized the bank account or could not have issued any direction to the bank officer, prohibiting the account of the accused from being operated upon…”
(emphasis supplied)
10. In view of the above clear proposition of law laid down by Supreme Court, the Writ Petition is liable to be dismissed, and the s is, accordingly, dismissed. The miscellaneous petitions pending, if shall stand closed. There shall be no order as to costs.
(A.RAMALINGESWARA RAO 11.11.2014.
Note: LR copy to be marked: Yes / No B/o. vs
[1] 1994 (1) ALT (Crl.) 119 (Karn.)
[2] 1996 (3) ALT 215 (DB)
[3] (1999) 7 SCC 685