SupremeToday Landscape Ad
Back
Next
Judicial Analysis Court Copy Headnote Facts Arguments Court observation
Listen Audio Icon Pause Audio Icon
judgment-img

1996 Supreme(AP) 589

Andhra Pradesh High Court
Judges : M.N.RAO, S.R.NAYAK
Mohd.Maqbool Ahmed and Mateen - Appellant
Versus
Deputy Commissioner of Police, Administration-cum-EState Officer, Hyderabad - Respondent
Decided On : 07-11-96

Bank accounts are property within the meaning of Section 102 Cr. P. C. and can be seized by the police under the said provision.

Headnote:

CRIMINAL PROCEDURE - SECTION 102 - POWER OF POLICE OFFICER TO SEIZE PROPERTY - INTERPRETATION - BANK ACCOUNTS - WHETHER CAN BE SEIZED - HELD, YES - BANK ACCOUNTS ARE PROPERTY WITHIN THE MEANING OF SECTION 102 CR. P. C. AND CAN BE SEIZED BY THE POLICE UNDER THE SAID PROVISION.

Fact of the Case:

The petitioners, a husband and wife, were involved in a case of alleged forgery and sale of an air ticket. The police, during the investigation, froze their bank accounts. The petitioners challenged the police's action, arguing that Section 102 Cr. P. C. does not empower the police to freeze bank accounts.

Finding of the Court:

The court held that Section 102 Cr. P. C. empowers the police to 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. The court further held that bank accounts are property within the meaning of Section 102 Cr. P. C. and can be seized by the police under the said provision.

Issues: Whether Section 102 Cr. P. C. empowers the police to freeze bank accounts.

Ratio Decidendi: The court relied on the definition of the expression 'movable property' occurring in Section 22 of the Indian Penal Code and the decision of the Supreme Court in R. K. Dalmia vs. Delhi Administration to hold that bank accounts are property within the meaning of Section 102 Cr. P. C. The court also held that the police has power to 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.

Final Decision: The court dismissed the writ petition, holding that the police had the power to freeze the petitioners' bank accounts under Section 102 Cr. P. C.

M. N. RAO, J.

( 1 ) THE question for our decision in this writ petition, referred to a Division Bench by our learned brother C. V. N. Sastry, J. , on the ground that it involves an important question, is: whether Section 102 Cr. P. C. , empowers a Police Officer to freeze the bank account of a person suspected to be involved in the commission of an offence?

( 2 ) THE first petitioner is the husband of the second petitioner. They are intimately associated with a firm by name Matchless Travel Bureau,hyderabad. Petitioner No. 1 is the Executive Director and the second petitioner, his wife, is one of the partners. The firm is an approved agent of I. A. T. A. (International Air Transport Association ). It is stated that all the Airlines extend credit facilities to the approved agents. The firm s main business is to book airtickets to foreign countries.

( 3 ) PETITIONERS 1 and 2 are figuring as A-2 and A-4 in Crime No. 170/95 of the Saidabad Police Station, Hyderabad registered under Sections 465, 471 and 420 of the Indian Penal Code, Sections 3 and 4 of the Passports Act and Section 25 of the Emigration Act. In the remand report submitted before the XV Metropolitan Magistrate by the Inspector of Police (Foreigners Branch)Special Branch, Hyderabad, it is alleged, inter alia, that one Mohd. Ibrahim All (A-1 in Cr. No. 170/95) travelled on a ticket sold by the firm from Hyderabad to Montreal. At the London Airport, it was detected by the Immigration authorities that A-1 was in possession of a forged Canadian Immigrant Visa No. W-0174367883 and a forged Canadian admission stamp on page No. 20 of his passport. Due to reasons beyond the control of the Air India, the passenger (A-1) was forced to travel further to New York on purely technical grounds and on arrival at the John F. Kennedy Airport, New York, the U. S. Immigration authorities confirmed that the Visa for Canada was a forged one and so, he was deported back to Bombay in India. After A-1 was brought back to Bombay, he confessed that the petitioner No. 1 (A-2) and one Syed Hussain alias Asif (A-3) promised him a "safe haven" in New York for a consideration of a total amount of Rs. 3,25,000/-, out of which Rs. 1,25,000/- was already paid at Hyderabad prior to his departure and the balance of Rs. 2,00,000/- was to be paid after his reaching New York. He also disclosed that his elder brother - Mujeeb-ur-Rahman - was settled in New York engaging in business and his ultimate destination was New York. The air-ticket as well as the Canadian Immigrant visa were arranged by A-3 and A-2 (petitioner No. l) after receiving a sum of rs. 1,25,000/-, from A-1. The case is still under investigation; the charge-sheet has not yet been filed.

( 4 ) THE petitioner No. l is an account holder in the State Bank of Hyderabad,debeerpura Branch - Current A/c. No. 2 /160 - and the second petitioner has a Savings Bank Account- No. 4283- with the Indian Overseas Bank, Basheerbagh Branch, Hyderabad. In the course of the investigation, it appeared, the police served letters upon the respective Bank Managers freezing the Bank accounts of the petitioners and this fact was informed by the Managers of the respective Banks to the petitioners herein. Challenging the same, the present writ petition was filed.

( 5 ) SRI Narasimha Reddy, learned Counsel for the petitioners, has urged that the police has no power under Section 102 Cr. P. C. , the only provision which enables the police to seize property during the investigation of a crime, to freeze the bank accounts of persons alleged to be involved in the commission of an offence. The bank accounts in question have nothing to do with the crime under investigation. The money in the accounts of the petitioners is not the subject matter of investigation and the second petitioner, although a partner of the firm, has nothing to do with the alleged offence.

( 6 ) COUNTERING these contentions, Sri Sadasiva Reddy, learned Government Pleader for Home; has argued that any proper










Click Here to Read the rest of this document
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
SupremeToday Portrait Ad
supreme today icon
logo-black

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

qr

Scan Me!

India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!

For Daily Legal Updates, Join us on :

whatsapp-icon Back to top