The main legal point established is that the freezing of a bank account under Section 102 of Cr.P.C. requires a direct nexus with the alleged offence and the Investigating Officer must follow the prescribed procedure, failing which the action is deemed illegal.

JUDGMENT :

John Michael Cunha, J.

1. Petitioner is aggrieved by the orders passed by the courts below dismissing the application filed by him under Section 457 of Cr.P.C.

2. Heard learned counsel for the petitioner and the learned State Public Prosecutor appearing for respondent and perused the records.

3. The brief facts necessary for adjudication of the controversy is that the Cluster Branch Manager of ICICI Bank Limited, Chitradurga branch lodged a complaint before the Inspector of Police, Chitradurga Town Police Station alleging manipulation of jewel loan account at Chitradurga Branch. The material allegations made in the complaint read as follows:

“In view of the above, we suspect that some of the customers had not come to the branch for availing the said jewel loans. However, their documents were supposedly manipulated and few of them would have even colluded with the above said persons. Further, signature of the jewel appraiser also appears to have been manipulated. We also find that documents have been fabricated and used to avail the said 34 loans, presumably even without creating adequate security for the Jewel Loans.”

4. A reading of the complaint indicates that the manipulation and fabrication of jewel loan accounts had taken place and it is alleged that the petitioner herein as well as the other employees working in the Bank were privy to the said offence. During the course of investigation, the Investigating Officer issued prohibitory order to the Manager of the aforesaid Bank directing the Bank Manager of ICICI Bank to freeze the Bank account bearing No.000201024771 standing in the name of the petitioner. Pursuant to the said letter, the Bank Manager froze the account.

5. Learned counsel appearing for the petitioner, placing reliance on the decision of this Court in the case of SMT.LATHIFA v/s THE STATE OF KARNATAKA, HOME DEPARTMENT, REPRESENTED BY ITS SECRETARY AND OTHERS, (2012) ILR(Kar) 2220 and with reference to Section 102 of Cr.P.C., would contend that the Investigating Officer has failed to comply with the mandatory requirements prescribed under Section 102 of Cr.P.C. The Investigating Officer did not satisfy himself that the account maintained by the petitioner had any nexus to the offence alleged by the complainant. No material has been produced before this Court to show that the said bank account has any nexus with the commission of alleged offence. Under the said circumstance, the action taken by the Investigating Officer to freeze the Savings Bank account of the petitioner, wherein salary and pension benefits of the petitioner are credited, is wholly illegal and abuse of power vested with the Investigating Officer.

6. Learned SPP appearing for the respondent has argued in support of the impugned action contending that the alleged offences having been committed by the petitioner who was an employee of the Bank, the Investigating Officer has rightly exercised his jurisdiction to freeze the Savings Bank account of the petitioner. Further he submitted that, since the property was not produced before the Court, application under Section 457 of Cr.P.C. itself was incompetent and therefore, there is no reason to interfere with the concurrent orders passed by the Courts below.

7. There can be no quarrel with the proposition of law that Bank account is also "property within the meaning of Section 102 of Cr.P.C". As per Section 102 of Cr.P.C., the Police Officer investigating the case is empowered to freeze property alleged or suspected to have been stolen or which may be found under the circumstance, which create suspicion of commission of any offence. In the instant case, the Investigating Officer proceeded to freeze the Bank account of the petitioner without there being any material to show that the Bank account maintained by the petitioner had any nexus with the offences alleged in the FIR. As already stated above, the allegations made in the complaint are that the jewel loan accounts were manipulated by Bank emp