Back
SANJAY KUMAR DWIVEDI
Madhucon Projects Ltd. – Appellant
Versus
Union of India, through Central Bureau of Investigation – Respondent
JUDGMENT (C.A.V.)
This petition has been filed for quashing the impugned letter dated 02.04.2019 (Annexure-3) issued by the respondent in exercise of powers under section 91 Cr.P.C. directing Canara Bank (Prime Corporate Branch, Secunderabad) and all other consortium of banks funding the project of “4-laning of Ranchi-Jamshedpur National Highway, in the State of Jharkhand, not to allow the petitioners to operate their existing bank accounts, FDs, etc.
2. Further prayer is made for quashing the impugned reply of respondent dated 23.05.2019 dismissing the representation of the petitioner no.1 dated 06.05.2019.
3. Mr. R.S.Mazumdar, the learned Senior counsel appearing on behalf of the petitioners submitted that the petitioner was awarded the project for 4-laning of Ranchi-Rargaon-Jamshedpur section of 163.50 Kms on Design Built Finance Operate Transfer (DBFOT) annuity basis for semi annuity of INR 133.20 Crs. For 15 years.
4. Mr. Mazumdar, the learned Sr. counsel appearing for the petitioners further submitted that on 20.04.2011 Concession Agreement entered between petitioner no.4 (Special Purpose Vehicle of petitioner no.1) and NHAI. Project cost was to be INR 1655 crs with a co
Power of Police Officer to seize property – Sub-section (3) of Section 102, Cr.P.C is directory in nature. Accused whose property is seized by police officer can file application to grant interim cus....
The freezing of the bank account under section 102 Cr.P.C. must be in compliance with the statutory requirements, and the intimation to the court must be made forthwith as required by the law.
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....
Right to property is still a constitutional right under Article 300-A of the Constitution of India though not a fundamental right and the deprivation of the right can only be in accordance with the p....
The main legal point established in the judgment is the legality of freezing bank accounts under Section 102 Cr.P.C. and the applicability of this provision in the context of the case.
The freezing of a business account requires identification of the tainted amount to ensure proportionality, and blanket freezes violate constitutional protections against arbitrary state action.
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.
Seizure of assets under S.102 CrPC requires compliance with statutory provisions and cannot be based solely on suspicion.
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
