A bank is not bound by the recommendation of an Investigating Officer to defreeze a bank account, and the account holder must approach the court concerned for an order to defreeze the account.

JUDGMENT

RAVI NATH TILHARI, J. - Heard Sri K. A. Narasimham, learned counsel for the petitioner, and Sri A. V. S. Ramakrishna, learned counsel for all the respondents i.e., the Union Bank of India and its authorities, and perused the material available on record.

2. This Writ Petition is filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India seeking the following relief:-

"..... to issue Writ of Mandamus or any other appropriate writ, by declaring the action of the respondents authorities in freezing my account bearing No.106611100000089 without any authority and illegal, arbitrary and unconstitutional and consequentially direct the respondent authority to release my account bearing No.106611100000089 from the category of frozen account otherwise required to do so under statutory Law and to pass such other order or orders as this Hon'ble Court may deemed fit and proper in the circumstances of the case."

3. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the petitioner/East India Enterprises, Sector - I, Aganampudi, Gajuwaka Mandal, Visakhapatnam, represented by its Proprietor - Sri I. Sridhar operates the business with the financial assistance of respondent bank along with the Hongkong and Shanghai Banking Corporation Limited, Rajaji Salai Branch, Chennai. On 26/4/2010, the petitioner was informed by respondent No.3 - the Branch Manager of the then Andhra Bank, VSEZ Branch, Duvvada, Visakhapatnam - 530048, later on, merged in Union Bank of India, VSEZ Branch that the petitioner's account No.106611100000089 was frozen. He further submits that the petitioner concern was not involved in any irregular operations with the respondent Bank and the accounts were settled in O.A.No.7 of 2011 at the office of the Debts Recovery Tribunal - II at Chennai vide order, dtd. 14/2/2011. The petitioner approached the respondent authorities to permit him to operate the account and to defreeze the same vide representation, dtd. 31/10/2011, upon which, respondent No.2, on 14/11/2011, communicated the petitioner that the account was frozen as per the directions of the police authorities, Gajuwaka, as the Investigation Officer informed that the investigation in the crime registered against the petitioner in Crime No.321 of 2010 of Gajuwaka Police Station for the offences under Ss. 420, 464 and 120(B) I.P.C. was going on. After investigation, the charge sheet was also submitted in the Court of the learned III Additional Chief Metropolitan Magistrate, Gajuwaka, Visakhapatnam City. The trial is pending.

4. Learned counsel for the petitioner further submits that after investigation, the Investigation Officer submitted a letter, dtd. 28/12/2011, to the Branch Manager, respondent No.3, informing that he obtained legal opinion in the matter from Senior APP, Admn., Anakapalli, Visakhapatnam District. As per the legal opinion, it was not necessary to continue with the freezing of the accounts as the investigation had been completed and the charge sheet had been filed and all the accounts of the petitioner could be released.

5. Placing reliance on the letter, dtd. 28/12/2011, learned counsel for the petitioner submits that once investigation is completed and the Investigation Officer made the recommendation for release of the accounts, the respondents are not justified in continuing with the freezing of the accounts. He submits that the power to seize the accounts is with the police under Sec. 102 Cr.P.C., but the procedure for such seizure was not followed.

6. Learned counsel for the petitioner further placed reliance in Teesta Atul Setalvad vs. State of Gujarat,(2018) 2 SCC 372. to contend that after the investigation is over in view of the letter of the Investigating Officer dtd. 28/12/2011 submitted to the bank, the respondent Bank should have defreezed the petitioner's account and while doing so, could also impose the conditions.

7. Learned counsel for the petitioner places reliance in J. Satheesh Kumar and another vs. State, Represented by Inspector of Police, E