The main legal point established in the judgment is that the freezing of bank accounts under Section 102 of the Criminal Procedure Code can be justified if amounts earned through the commission of an offense by the accused are found in the accounts, regardless of the involvement of the account holders in the alleged offenses.

B.P. Dharmadhikari, J.

Looking to the controversy involved in the matter and by consent of the parties, we have heard the Writ Petition finally at the stage of admission by issuing Rule, making the same returnable forthwith.

Question to be looked into is – Whether Bank account of petitioners, who are not accused in any crime can be freezed by the Investigating Agency, under Section 102 of the Criminal Procedure Code? The Banks in which accounts lie are respondent nos. 3 and 4. The concerned police station is respondent no.1 and respondent no.2 is the Deputy Superintendent of Police. Last respondent i.e. respondent no.5 is State of Maharashtra. Prayer in the petition is to quash and set aside communications dated 20.11.2013, 20.11.2013, 03.12.2013 and 04.12.2013 issued by the respondent no.2 Deputy Superintendent of Police to the respondent nos. 3 and 4 Banks freezing the bank accounts. Letters are identical and point out that an offence has been registered under Sections 420, 465, 468, 201, 109, 409 and 34 of Indian Penal Code, as also Section 66A of the Information Technology Act and the S.D.P.O. Gadchandur is investigating into it. The account of petitioners with the said Bank has been wrongly used in the said offence. The accounts are therefore, directed to be freezed. Banks have been informed to contact the Police station officer concerned immediately if any body attempted to deal with those accounts.

2. We have heard Shri A.A. Naik, learned Counsel for the petitioners, Shri T.A. Mirza, learned A.P.P. for respondent nos. 1, 2 and 5, Shri V.M. Gadkari, learned Counsel for respondent no.3 and Shri V.A. Bramhe, learned Counsel for respondent no.4. Application No.100/2015 has been filed by M/s. Ultratech Limited seeking intervention. Shri M.R. Pillai, learned Counsel has appeared for proposed intervenor Company.

3. Proposed intervenor company has pointed out that the company needed to expand its plant at Awarpur, Tahsil Korparna, District Chandrapur and therefore, decided to acquire about 384 acres of land situated at village Talodi, Bakhardi, Palgaon. Shekhar Wankhede and Prakashrao, both residents of Nagpur represented to proposed intervenor company that they are in the business of advising and private consultation for acquisition of private lands and established a firm by name "M/s. Swastik Business Advisory and Consultancy".

4. After negotiations, a letter of indent came to be issued on 09.12.2011 and work of acquiring 384 acres of land was given to Shekhar Wankhede and Prakashrao. As per the terms and conditions of the agreement, the proposed intervenor issued total 99 cheques in the name of 41 land owners. Accused persons therefore, forged an agreement to sale and encashed the cheques issued in the name of the cultivators by opening bank accounts with the help of forged documents. After getting knowledge of this fraud, the proposed intervenor Company lodged a police complaint on 13.08.2013. Even the land owners have filed complaint against those accused persons. During investigation the police authorities found that the accused have committed breach of trust by misappropriating total amount of Rs. 16,15,52,636/- and that amount reached the account of petitioners Banks at Nagpur. Petitioners claim that the accused persons have entered into a memorandum of understanding with the petitioner no.1 for setting up a News Channel. The proposed intervenor company submits that accused persons have transferred misappropriated amounts to various persons including the present petitioners. They also point out that similar writ petition registered as Writ Petition No. 383/2015, has been filed by Khamboj Ispat Private Limited.

5. The respondent no.2 S. D.P.O. has filed reply which is more or less on the same lines. In paragraph no.5 of the said reply it is pointed out that various cheques were issued in the name of 41 Farmers and its total amount is Rs. 11,68,51,415/. Proposed intervenor company has through R.T.G.S. paid total amoun