Back
SUPREME COURT OF INDIA
SANJAY KISHAN KAUL, M.M. SUNDRESH, JJ.
RATAN BABULAL LATH - APPELLANT
VERSUS
THE STATE OF KARNATAKA - RESPONDENT
CRIMINAL APPEAL NO. 949 OF 2021 (ARISING OUT OF SLP(CRL.) NO. 2987 of 2021)
DECIDED ON : 06-09-2021
Criminal Procedure Code, 1973 – Section 102 – Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988 – Section 18A – Attachment of bank account – Sustainability – It is not possible to sustain freezing of bank account of appellant taking recourse to Section 102 Cr.P.C. as Prevention of Corruption Act is a Code by itself – Freezing of account of appellant cannot be sustained and accordingly, set aside – Consequently, impugned order also set aside leaving open to respondent to take such recourse in law as may be permissible. (Paras 3 and 4)
Facts of the case:
Only question under examination is whether attachment of bank account of appellant is sustainable in exercise of powers under Section 102 Cr.P.C.
Findings of Court:
Counter affidavit of the respondent seeks to suggest that they are in the process of filing an application under Section 18A of the Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988, since the earlier authorization issued by the Government under Section 3 of the Criminal Law Amendment of Ordinance, 1944 was not in the form of the Government Order.
Result : Appeal allowed.
ORDER :
1. Leave granted.
2. The only question which we are examining is whether the attachment of bank account of the appellant is sustainable in exercise of powers under Section 102 Cr.P.C.
3. The counter affidavit of the respondent seeks to suggest that they are in the process of filing an application under Section 18A of the Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988, since the earlier authorization issued by the Government under Section 3 of the Criminal Law Amendment of Ordinance, 1944 was not in the form of the Government Order.
4. Be that as it may, on that account, it is not possible to sustain the freezing of the bank account of the appellant taking recourse to Section 102 Cr.P.C. as the Prevention of Corruption Act is a Code by itself.
5. In view of the aforesaid position, the freezing of the account of the appellant cannot be sustained and is, accordingly, set aside.
6. Consequently, the impugned order is also set aside leaving open to the respondent to take such recourse in law as may be permissible.
7. The appeal is allowed.
8. The parties to bear their own costs.
An indispensable Tool for Legal Professionals, Endorsed by Various High Court and Judicial Officers
Please visit our Training & Support
Center or Contact Us for assistance
Scan Me!
India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!
For Daily Legal Updates, Join us on :
Back to top
