Back
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY
N.J.JAMADAR
Prasad Rajnikant Sheth – Appellant
Versus
State of Maharashtra – Respondent
JUDGMENT :
N.J. JAMADAR, J.
1. Rule. Rule is made returnable forthwith.
2. This petition under Article 227 of the Constitution of India and Section 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure 1973 (“the Code”), assails the legality, propriety and correctness of an order dated 5th July, 2023 passed by the learned Additional Chief Metropolitan Magistrate, Esplanade Mumbai whereby an application preferred by the Petitioner to defreeze his account bearing No.1572669960 maintained with Central Bank of India, Dadar T.T. Branch, Mumbai came to be rejected.
3. The background facts leading to the petition can be stated in brief as under :-
3.1 Abhishek Sheth-Respondent No.3 is the brother of the Petitioner. Rajnikant, who passed away on 17th October, 2010, was the father of the Petitioner and Respondent No.3. The Petitioner’s father was endowed with properties.
3.2 After the demise of the Petitioner’s father, all his investments in the equity markets were transferred in the name of his wife-Meena Sheth, the mother of the Petitioner and the Respondent No.3. Meena Sheth passed away on 5th October, 2020.
3.3. The Petitioner alleges that after the demise of the mother, disputes arose between the Petitioner
Court affirmed the validity of freezing a bank account under suspicion of crime while allowing withdrawal of unconnected funds.
The court established that timely notification to the jurisdictional magistrate regarding account seizures is essential to uphold the rights of account holders under Section 102 of the Cr.P.C.
Freezing of bank accounts under Section 102 Cr.P.C is lawful during investigations without prior notice, and challenges to such orders are not maintainable when alternative remedies exist.
The central legal point established in the judgment is that the freezing of a bank account under Section 102 of Cr.P.C requires the fulfillment of pre-conditions, including a reasonable suspicion of ....
Seizure of assets under S.102 CrPC requires compliance with statutory provisions and cannot be based solely on suspicion.
The court established that a bank account can be frozen under suspicion of criminal activity, and failure to report the freeze to the Magistrate does not invalidate the action.
The main legal point established in the judgment is that the procedure for freezing bank accounts under the Unlawful Activities (Prevention) Act, 1967, specifically Section 25, is directory in nature....
The main legal point established in the judgment is the requirement to follow the procedure laid down under Sec. 102 Cr.P.C and the need for sufficient evidence to support the freezing of a bank acco....
The Investigating Officer lacks authority under Section 91 of Cr.P.C. to freeze a bank account absent compliance with Section 102, violating procedural requirements and the petitioner's rights.
An indispensable Tool for Legal Professionals, Endorsed by Various High Court and Judicial Officers
Please visit our Training & Support
Center or Contact Us for assistance
Scan Me!
India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!
For Daily Legal Updates, Join us on :
Back to top
