S. RANGANATHAN, J.

( 1 ) THE petitioner Ms. Swaran Sabharwal is the wife of Shri Ram Swarup. She maintains a savings bank account with the American Express International Banking Corporation (respondent No. 4), the number of the account being 1656. Her grievance in the writ petition is that the above savings account has been frozen at the instance of respondent. It is alleged that she has not even been supplied with a copy of the order freezing her account, but that respondent No. 4 is refusing to permit her to operate on her account because of such a prohibitory order from respondent No. 2.

( 2 ) IT is now common ground that the Deputy Commissioner of Police, Special Branch, Delhi (respondent No. 2) has issued to the manager of the American Express Bank a letter dated 31-10-1985. The subject matter of the letter as set out in the letter reads thus :

"regarding ceasing of account in r/o Sh. Ram Swarup s/o - arrested in case FIR No. 216 dated 23-9-1985 u/ss. 3, 4 and 5, 7 of Official Secrets Act read with 120-B IPC, P. S. Tughlaq Road, Delhi. "the memorandum proceeds to state :

"i am to inform you that Mr. Swaran Sabharwal s/o Ram Swarup Holder of Bank Account No. 1656 has been arrested in the aforesaid case. His account may kindly be ceased forthwith and he may not be allowed to operate his account. "the petitioner contends that this prohibitory order is wholly invalid and that the same should be quashed.

( 3 ) THE petitioner also applied for permission to operate the bank account during the pendency of the petition. After hearing both the parties the court made the following order in the interim applications (viz. C. Ms. 882, 883 of 1986) :

"heard. Mr. Lekhi states that it will be acceptable to him if the petitioner is not allowed to operate the bank account but orders are passed to the effect that, if the writ petition is ultimately allowed, respondents 1 to 3 will pay 18% per annum interest with effect from 31-10-1985 till the date of the petition being allowed. We feel that the suggestion is very fair and we order accordingly. "the Bench also directed the expeditious hearing of the petition and the petition now comes up for hearing.

( 4 ) THERE can be no doubt that the prohibitory order dated 31-10-1985 is on the face of it illegal and should be quashed. It discloses a mix-up regarding the sex of the petitioner and her relationship to Ram Swarup, who is the accused in FIR 216 referred to in the letter. The letter proceeds on the basis that the account was in the name of the son of Ram Swarup and that it was necessary that his account should be frozen. Counsel for the respondents submits that this was an inadvertent error and that, in the original letter sent to the bank, the name and relationship have been set out correctly. But, even granting this, the letter is reckless in setting out the reason for the issue of the prohibitory order. It purports to say that the petitioner had been arrested in connection with the offence under the Official Secrets Act and that it was, therefore, necessary to prevent her from operating the account. This is admittedly not correct. Counsel for the respondents concedes that the petitioner has neither been arrested nor accused of the offences mentioned in the letter. The prohibitory order dated 31-10-1985 therefore discloses no valid or relevant reason for the direction given and discloses a complete non-application of mind to the circumstances in which the order was considered necessary. We, therefore, think that there is no alternative but to quash it.

( 5 ) LEARNED counsel for the respondents contended that the order dated 31-10-1985 could be sustained by reference to S. 102 of the Code of Criminal Procedure. This section reads as under : 102. (1) Any police officer may seize any property which may be alleged or suspected to have been stolen, or which may be found under circumstances which create suspicion of the commission of any offence. (2) such police officer, if subordinate to the officer

Click Here to Read the rest of this document