In this application under section 482, Cr. P. C. read with section 401, Cr. P.C. the petitioner has challenged the order dated 8. 8. 90 passed by the Special Judge, Assam and letters dated 8. 5. 90 of the Inspector (CBI) Gauhati in Crime Case No. RC 23/89 SHG under sections 120 B and 409, IPC and section 5 (2), P. C. Act.

2. Facts, The Inspector (CBI) Gauhati wrote letters dated 8. 5. 90 to the Manager of the State Bank of India, Shillong, the Manager of the Indian Bank, Gauhati, the Manager of the State Bank of India, Aizawl and the Manager of the Gauhati Co-operative Town Bank Ltd, Gauhati directing them not to allow the petitioner, M/s Purbanchal Road Service Gauhati, to withdraw money or property from their respective banks respecting amount deposited by and credit balance and lockers held by the petitioner, which are described in those letters, stating that they have been seized under section 102, Cr. P. C. during investigation of the Crime Case No. 23/89 SHG. Thereafter, t e petitioner filed an application before the Special Judge, Assam for releasing them. The learned Special Judge has rejected the petition by holding that the petition is premature. Hence this petition.

3. Mr.J.M. Choudhury, the learned counsel for the petitioner, has submitted that a police officer has no jurisdiction to pass an order prohibiting a bank with which an accessed has an account and a locker not allowing to operate them. The learned counsel has placed reliance on the decision in Textile Traders Syndicate vs. State of U.P., AIR 1960 Allahabad 405.

4. Section 102, Cr. P. C. provides :

"(1) Any police officer may seize any property which may be alleged or suspected to rave 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-in-charge of a police station, shall forthwith report the seizure to that officer.

(3) Every police officer acting under sub-section (1) shall forth­with report the seizure to the Magistrate having jurisdiction and where the property seized is such that it cannot be con­veniently transported to the Court, he may give -custody thereof to any person on his executing a bond undertaking to produce the property before the Court as and when required and to give effect to the further orders of the Court as to the disposal of the same”

5. Under section 102, the police officer has to report the seizure to the Magistrate concerned, and if the property seized cannot be conveniently transported to the Court, the police officer may give custody thereof to any person on his executing a bond undertaking to produce the properties before the Court as and when required.

Section 451, Cr. P.C. provides for disposal and custody respecting the property produced before any criminal Court during enquiry or trial. Section 457. Cr.P.C. provides that, whenever seizure of property by any police officer is reported to a Magistrate under section 102, Cr.P.C. and such property is not produced before a criminal Court during enquiry or trial. the Magistrate may mike such order as he thinks fit respecting the disposal of such property or delivery of such property to the person entitled t possession thereof. On reading of sections 102, 451 and 457, Cr.P,C. together, it indicates that the word 'seize' used in section 102, Cr.P.C. means actual taking possession in pursuance of a legal process Therefore, prohibiting a bank with which the accused has an account and a locker, not to pay any amount out of the account of the ac used to the accused and not to allow the accused to take away property from the locker is not seizure under section 102, Cr.P.C. as the 'seizure', as contemplated under section 102, Cr.P.C. is an act of taking possession of the property in fact, and as such no such order can be passed by a police officer.

6. In Textile Traders Syndicate vs. State of U.P., AIR 1960 Allahabad 405, it has been held that section 550 (old) % 102 (new) does no

Click Here to Read the rest of this document