” Heard the learned Counsel for the petitioner, learned Counsel for the second respondent and the learned Government Pleader for respondent Nos. 3 and 4.

2. The petitioner states that she deposited an amount of Rs. 3,10,000/- in her bank account in the first respondent bank for the purpose of medical treatment to her husband. The said amount was taken from identifiable persons. When she wanted to withdraw the money on 13.07.2000 it was informed by the first respondent that a written request was made by the Police Inspector, Saidabad, Hyderabad fourth respondent, to freeze the said amount by letter dated 20.01.2000. As per the said communication of the fourth respondent, the said amount is a part of booty in Crime No.3 of 2000 in respect of which an FIR was lodged with the XII Metropolitan Magistrate, Hyderabad, showing the petitioner as accused No. 5. It was alleged that the said amount was given by the son of the petitioner, who was another accused and the amount was deposited in the bank account of the petitioner. The husband of the petitioner died on 30.11.2000. Challenging the letter dated 20.01.2000 of the fourth respondent to the first respondent, the present Writ Petition was filed.

3. The second respondent filed a counter affidavit stating that the petitioner is the mother of accused No.1 and accused No.6 is the daughter-in-law of the petitioner. Accused Nos. 1, 2 and 3 with the connivance of accused No. 4, who was the attender in the State Bank of Hyderabad, Hindupur Branch, stole the demand draft book and by forging the signature of bank officials utilized the forged demand drafts and made purchases of two Maruti cars, air tickets, gold jewellery, clothes, electronic items and concealed some jewellery and amounts with the petitioner, who is accused No. 5. Though the trial Court initially acquitted accused Nos. 2 and 5 and convicted accused No.1, the appeals preferred by accused Nos.1 and 4 in Criminal Appeal Nos. 211 of 2010 and 210 of 2010 on the file of the learned III Additional Metropolitan Sessions Judge, Hyderabad, were remanded by judgment dated 19.10.2010 for fresh trial. 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 freezing of amount is different from seizure in exercise of powers conferred under Section 102(1) of the Code of Criminal Procedure, and hence the letter issued by the fourth respondent could not have been acted upon. He relied on the judgment of the Karnataka High Court in M/s. Malnad Construction Company, Shimoga v. State of Karnataka (1994 (1) ALT (Cri) 119 : (1994 Cri LJ 645 (Kar)). On the other hand, learned Government Pleader relied on a Division Bench decision of this Court in Mohd. Maqbool Ahmed alias Mateen v. The Deputy Commissioner of Police, Special Investigation Team, Hyderabad (1996 (3) ALT 215 (DB) and the decision of the Supreme Court in State of Maharashtra v. Tapas D. Neogy (1999) 7 SCC 685) : (1999 AIR SCW 3389).

5. The facts in the case are admitted. The amount of Rs. 3,10,000/- lying to the credit of the savings bank account of the petitioner was sought to be frozen by the fourth respondent through a letter dated 20.01.2000, which is challenged in the present Writ Petition. The letter was issued for freezing the said amount on the ground that it forms part of the booty in Crime No. 3 of 2000 and the petitioner was arrayed as accused No. 5. The case is undergoing fresh trial after remand from the appellate Court.

6. Now, the point for consideration is whether the fourth respondent has the authority to order freezing of the bank account instead of seizing 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