SMT. ROSHAN DALVI, J.

1. A short point of law under Section 102 of the Criminal Procedure Code (Cr.P.C.) is a part of this reference. The movable property being a bank account which a Police Officer is entitled to seize during investigation is the subject-matter of the reference. The learned Single Judge (Bobde, J.) has formulated the question for reference thus:

“Whether section 102 of the Code of Criminal Procedure requires the issuance of a notice to a person before or simultaneously with the action of attaching the Bank account?”

2. The case of State of Maharashtra vs. Tapas D. Neogy, (1999)7 SCC 685 has settled the law relating to seizure of bank accounts. The bank accounts are held to be property capable of seizure. We are called upon to answer the question under reference as to when the bank account is seized or sought to be seized, whether a notice to the person who is the account-holder, is required to be given before or at the time of such action of seizure.

3. The main contention on behalf of the person, whose bank account is seized, is the right of natural justice - the right of being heard and being informed of such an action as an aspect of audi alteram partem doctrine. It is contended that his right of natural justice would be impinged, hampered, restricted and even denied if prior to or at the time of the seizure of the bank account he is not given notice of the action. The main contention on the part of the opponent is that the doctrine of audi alteram partem cannot be extended to a notice at or before seizing of a bank account by a Police Officer as it is a part of an act of an officer during investigation which excludes the procedural requirement of the principle of giving notice as an incident of the right of natural justice of a person. It is contended that it would be counter-productive and self-destructive if an Investigating Officer, upon being convinced of such an action to be taken during investigation under Section 102 of the Cr.P.C., would be enjoined to inform the party whose account is sought to be frozen, of such an act. It is argued that by its very nature and more specially in the current technological set up of banking and financial transactions any person even remotely can operate his account such as to withdraw or transfer its contents completely to thwart the Police action. Hence it is contended that the notice at the time of freezing of the bank account or immediately prior thereto is not required to be given.

4. The action of seizing a movable property, which includes freezing of the bank account, is taken under Section 102 of the Cr.P.C. which runs thus:

“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 any 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 in securing proper accommodation for the custody of such property, or where the continued retention of the property in police custody may not be considered necessary for the purpose of investigation, he may give custody thereof to any person on his executing a bond undertaking to produce the property before the Court as and when required and to give effect to the further orders of the Court as to the disposal of the same:

Provided that where the property seized under sub-section (1) is subject to speedy and natural decay and if the person entitled to the possession of such property is unknown or absent and the value of such property is less than five hundred rupees, it may forthwith be sold