The power to freeze a bank account under Section 102 of the Cr.P.C. can only be exercised when there is a direct link between the account and the alleged offense, as established by the legal framework applied by the court in reaching its decision.

JUDGMENT :

Manish Pitale, J.

1. Rule. Rule made returnable forthwith. The criminal writ petition is heard finally with consent of the learned counsel appearing for the parties.

2. The Petitioner has filed the present petition challenging the letter/communication dated 27.08.2020, sent by the Investigating Officer i.e. Respondent no.1 herein to the Respondent no.2 - Bank, thereby freezing bank account of the Petitioner, wherein his pension is regularly deposited.

3. The backdrop in which the aforesaid letter was issued is that First Information Report bearing Crime No.1382 of 2017 dated 09.06.2017 was registered at Police Station, Wardha against the Petitioner for offences punishable under Sections 420, 409, 468 and 471 of the Indian Penal Code (IPC), on the allegation that the Petitioner had misused his position as Bank Manager and sanctioned a huge amount in favour of an entity and that the said amount was misappropriated.

4. It is in this backdrop that the impugned communication was issued, as a consequence of which, the pension account of the Petitioner has been frozen and according to him, he is facing economic hardship, as he stands deprived of his only source of income.

5. On notice being issued in the present petition, a detailed affidavit-in-reply has been filed on behalf of Respondent no.1, wherein the aforesaid action of freezing the bank account of the Petitioner is sought to be justified. Details of the extent of misappropriated amount are given and it is claimed that the action taken by the Investigating Officer under Section 91 of the Code of Criminal Procedure (Cr.P.C.) is justified.

6. Shri Sirpurkar, learned counsel appearing for the Petitioner submitted that the source of power for issuance of such a communication could not have been Section 91 of the Cr.P.C., which pertains to summons to produce a document or other things and perhaps the power could be sourced to Section 102 of the Cr.P.C., which pertains to power of a Police Officer to seize certain documents. It is submitted that even if the Investigating Officer, in the present case could have taken recourse to Section 102 of the Cr.P.C., in terms of the law laid down by the Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of State of Maharashtra Vs. Tapas D. Neogy, 1999 (7) SCC 685, followed by this Court in the case of Gulam Sarvar S/o. Farukh Khan Vs. State of Maharashtra and others, 2018 SCC OnLine Bom. 164, the account of the petitioner could have been frozen only in specific circumstances mentioned in Section 102 of the Cr.P.C. It was submitted that none of such circumstances exists in the present case and that therefore, the present petition deserves to be allowed.

7. On the other hand, Shri Khan, learned Assistant Public Prosecutor appearing for the Respondent no.1 submitted that the details of the extent of misappropriation of amount on the part of the Petitioner was stated in the reply. The bank accounts opened by the Petitioner for misappropriating huge amounts were also stated, which indicated the extent of involvement of the Petitioner in the said bank. Reference was also made to Section 102 of the Cr.P.C. and it was submitted that in the facts and circumstances of the present case, the impugned communication does not deserve interference.

8. Before adverting to the facts of the present case, it would be appropriate to refer the position of law clarified by the Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of State of Maharashtra Vs. Tapas D. Neogy (supra). After having taken note of the divergent views taken by the different High Courts, the Hon’ble Supreme Court held as follows :

“12. Having considered the divergent views taken by different High Courts with regard to the power of seizure under Section 102 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, and whether the bank account can be held to be “property” within the meaning of said Section 102(1), we see no justification to give any narrow interpretation to the provisions of the Criminal Procedure Code. It is well known that corruption