B.H.MARLAPALLE, R.C.CHAVAN, ROSHAN DALVI
Vinoskumar Ramachandran Valluvar – Appellant
Versus
State of Maharashtra – Respondent
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 par
Login now and unlock free premium legal research
Login to SupremeToday AI and access free legal analysis, AI highlights, and smart tools.
Login
now!
India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!
Copyright © 2023 Vikas Info Solution Pvt Ltd. All Rights Reserved.