The lawful exercise of powers under section 102 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973, to seize the bank account during the course of investigation and the importance of protecting public money.

S.K.Katriar, J.

1. This writ petition has been preferred with the prayer to issue a writ of mandamus commanding the respondents to allow the petitioner to operate his bank account bearing current account no. 2/2143, with the State Bank of India, Katahra Branch, (respondent nos. 1 to 4) in which an amount to the tune of Rs. 39,67,50.20 P.is lying in deposit, The respondent Bank is purportedly acting on the instructions of the Central Bureau of Investigation (respondent no.5), in refusing to allow the petitioner to operate the Bank account.

2. The petitioner, Chandra Kumar Mishra, runs his proprietory business in the name and style of M/s. Shakti Traders. Respondent no.5 had instituted an F.I.R. on 8.8.98, with the Delhi Special Police Establishment, Bihar Branch, Patna, against one Chandradeo Ram, Accountant, State Bank of India, Kathara Branch, district Giridih, and others not named in the F.I.R. alleging issuance of D.C.Rs., which are in the nature of demand drafts, in favour of Central Coal Fields Ltd., without depositing the money value of the D.C.Rs. with the Bank. The said Chandradeo Ram was then functioning as an Accountant in the said Branch of the Bank. The F.I.R. was registered as RC 27 (A)/88, and a copy of the same is marked as Annexure-1 to the writ petition. Another F.I.R. was lodged with the Delhi Special Police Establishment, Bihar Branch, Patna, alleging similar allegations of obtaining D.C.Rs. from the Kathara Branch without depositing the money for which the D.C.Rs. were detained, wherein the petitioner was also named as an accused person, apart from others. The same was registered as RC case no. 37(A)/83, a copy of which is Annexure-2 to the writ petition. Patna Branch of the C.B.I. investigated the allegations and submitted a joint charge sheet dated 16.7.97 (Annexure-A to the counter affidavit of respondent no.5), under Section 420, 467, 468, 471, 477 A and 201 I.P.C., as well as under Section 5(2) of the Prevention of Corruption Act.

3. The petitioner has maintained a Bank Account with the Kathara Branch, bearing current Account No. 2/2143, in which a sum of Rs. 39,67,506.20 P. is lying in deposit. The respondent Bank has instituted Money suit No. 2/93 in the court of the Subordinate Judge, Bermo, at Tenughat, for realisation of Rs, 1,79,47,752.00. The Subordinate Judge allowed the Banks application under Order 38, Rule 5 C.P.C., for attachment of property before the judgment, and the aforesaid Bank Account of the petitioner was attached vide order dated 2.12.95. The petitioner challenged the order of the Subordinate Judge before the Ranchi Bench of the High Court in Misc. Appeal No. 78/96 (R) (Kamal Kishor Singh & Ors. vs. State Bank of India and Ors.), which was allowed by a learned single Judge by judgment dated 18.3.97, whereby the said order dated 2.12.95, was set aside, and the matter was remitted back to the Subordinate Judge for a fresh order in accordance with law. It appears that the Bank has not thereafter pursued this matter before the Subordinate Judge.

4. The petitioner had issued a cheque for Rs. 45,000/- in favour of one Shilesh Kumar Mishra, drawn on his aforesaid current Account No. 2/2143, which was returned to the drawee with the Banks note dated 6.1.95 stating that the same could not be collected because "ReasonsA/C seized by the C.B.I., vide letter 6614/3/27037/A-88, dated 19.10.99". Photo copies of the cheque and the Banks return memo are marked Annexure 5 and 6 respectively to the writ petition. The petitioner had issued another cheque dated 20.9.97 for Rs. 50,000/-, drawn on the same Account which was also returned by the Bank with the note "referred to drawer". Photo Copies of the cheque and the Banks return memo are marked Annexures 7 and 8 respectively to the writ petition.

5. While assailing the validity of the impugned action of the respondent authorities, learned counsel for the petitioner submitted that the impugned action of respondent no.5 is in purported exercise