1. Challenge to the attachment of a bank account under Section 102 Cr.P.C. in a matter involving the Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988. (Para 2 )
Back
Next 
2021 Supreme(SC) 488
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
Important Points
IMPORTANT POINT
Freezing of bank account taking recourse to Section 102 Cr.P.C. cannot be sustained as Prevention of Corruption Act is a Code by itself.
Freezing of bank account taking recourse to Section 102 Cr.P.C. cannot be sustained as Prevention of Corruption Act is a Code by itself.
Subject
Criminal Law - Attachment of Bank Account
Act Referred
Headnote
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.
Legal Category Hierarchy
Advocates:
Advocate Appeared:
For the Appellant : Mr. Ashwin Vaish, Mr. Shantanu Sagar, Adv
For the Respondent: Mr. Shubhranshu Padhi, Mr. Ashish Yadav, Mr. Rakshit Jain, Mr. Vishal Banshal, Adv.
Advocate Appeared:
For the Appellant : Mr. Ashwin Vaish, Mr. Shantanu Sagar, Adv
For the Respondent: Mr. Shubhranshu Padhi, Mr. Ashish Yadav, Mr. Rakshit Jain, Mr. Vishal Banshal, Adv.
Table of Contents
2. Respondent's submission regarding the filing of an application under Section 18A of the Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988 due to authorization irregularities. (Para 3 )
3. The court observed that the Prevention of Corruption Act is a complete code, rendering the freezing of accounts under Section 102 Cr.P.C. unsustainable. (Para 4 )
4. Recourse to Section 102 Cr.P.C. for freezing bank accounts is unsustainable when the governing special statute, such as the Prevention of Corruption Act, is a complete code. (Para 4 )
5. Appeal allowed and the order freezing the bank account set aside. (Para 5 , 6 , 7 )
6. Is the attachment of a bank account under Section 102 Cr.P.C. sustainable in cases governed by the Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988?
No, the freezing of a bank account under Section 102 Cr.P.C. is not sustainable because the Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988, is a complete code by itself. (Para 4 )
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.
