Back
2012 Supreme(Kar) 197
2012 (2) KCCR 1480
KARNATAKA HIGH COURT
S. Abdul Nazeer, J
Smt. Lathifa-Petitioner
Versus
State of Karnataka and Others-Respondents
Writ Petition No. 17240 of 2011 (GM-RES),
Decided on: 21.3.2012
Sri Arun Shyam for Dharmashree Associates, for Petitioner;
Sri M.C. Nagashree, High Court Government Pleader, for Respondents-1 to 4.
The main legal point established in the judgment is that the police must provide evidence of a nexus between the property to be seized and the alleged offence, and must strictly adhere to the mandatory procedures outlined in Section 102 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973.
Headnote:
Bank Account Seizure - Criminal Procedure - Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973, Section 102
Fact of the Case:
The petitioner's bank account was frozen by the police under Section 102 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973, based on allegations of her husband's criminal activities. The petitioner challenged the seizure, arguing that the police did not comply with the legal requirements for freezing the account.
Finding of the Court:
The court found that the police did not provide evidence of a nexus between the bank account and the alleged offence, and failed to follow the mandatory procedures outlined in Section 102 of the Cr.P.C. Therefore, the seizure of the petitioner's bank account was deemed illegal.
Issues: The main issue was whether the police were justified in freezing the petitioner's bank account under Section 102 of the Cr.P.C.
Ratio Decidendi: The court held that for the application of Section 102, the properties sought to be seized or frozen must be either stolen properties or have a nexus with the alleged offence. It emphasized that following the procedure as provided under Section 102 is mandatory.
Final Decision: The writ petition succeeded, and the court quashed the endorsement issued by the bank, directing the bank to permit the petitioner to operate her bank account in accordance with the law.
S. Abdul Nazeer, J: The question for consideration in this writ petition is whether the Sub-Inspector of Police, Vitla Police Station is justified in freezing the bank account of the petitioner under Section 102 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973?
2. The petitioner contends that on 21.3.2011, Belthangady Police have illegally detained her son, daughter, brother. Aggrieved by the same, she gave a representation to the Superintendent of Police, Mangalore, to release them from the illegal custody. The Superintendent of Police neither gave any, reply nor released them from the illegal custody. Therefore the petitioner filed a habeas corpus petition in W.P.No.55/2011 before this Court. This Court issued the notice to the Police on 25.3.2011 and sought status report in the matter. On the same day the detenues were produced before the JMFC, Bantwal by the 4th respondent with a false story that they had indulged in commission of offences punishable under Sections 399 and 404 of the Indian Penal Code. On the basis of the status report filed by the Police, habeas corpus writ petition was disposed of by this Court on 5.4.2011. When the petitioner went to the 5th respondent-Bank to oprate her bank account, the 5th respondent issued the endorsement at Annexure A dated 25.4.2011 informing that her S.B. account No.18186 has been free zed as directed by the 4th respondent.
3. The 4th respondent has filed the statement of objections contending that the petitioner and her husband Aboobakkar are hard core criminals. Aboobakkar was involved in many cases registered in various Police Stations. It is further contended that anticipating the seizure/recovery of the stolen money from his account in the event of his arrest, he has deposited the same in the bank account of his wife, the petitioner herein and his brother-in law. It is further contended that the petitioner is now absconding and is trying to escape from the clutches of law. Thai is why her bank account has been seized.
4. Learned Counsel for the petitioner submits than the respondents have not made out a case for seizure of the Bank account of the petitioner under Section 102 of the Cr.P.C. He further contends that it is obligatory upon the Police to show that the property, which they want to attach has created suspicion of the commission of any offence. The Officer seizing the account or attaching the account subordinate to the officer in charge of the police station has to forthwith report the seizure or attachment to his superior, which has not been done in the present case. They have not reported the seizure of the accounts to the Magistrate having jurisdiction. The Police have not issued notice of seizure to the petitioner and allowed her to operate the account subject to executing a bond as contemplated under Section 102(3) of the Cr.P.C.
5. On the other hand, learned HCGP appearing for the respondents submits that the Police have complied with all the requirements of law before and after seizing the bank account of the petitioner.
6. Section 102 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973, authorises the Police Officer to seize certain property. The said provision is as under:
"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 the commission of offence.
(2) Such Police Officer, if subordinate to the officer in charge of a police station, shall forthwith report the seizure to that officer.
(3) Every police officer acting under sub-section (1) shall forthwith report the seizure to the Magistrate having jurisdiction and where the property seized is such that it cannot be, conveniently transported to the Court or where there is difficulty is securing proper accommodation for the custody of such property, or where the continued retention of the property in police custody may not he considered necessary for the purpose
