ORDER :

Prasanta Kumar Deka, J.

1. Heard Mr. J.I. Borbhuiya, the learned counsel for the petitioner. Also heard Mr. G. Pegu, the learned Government Advocate, Assam for the respondent No. 7 and Mr. S. Bhuyan, the learned counsel for the respondent Nos. 1 and 2.

2. The petitioner is the Assistant Professor, Zoology Department, Gargaon College, Simaluguri (under suspension) in the district of Sivasagar. The petitioner is maintaining two SBI Savings Bank Account bearing Nos. 11671521246 and 306260667520 in the Nazira Branch and Gargaon Branch of State of Bank of India respectively. As submitted by Mr. Borbhuiya both these accounts were freezed at the time of investigation of Simaluguri P.S. Case No. 76/2019 U/S 406/420 IPC by the Officer-in-Charge, Simaluguri Police Station wherein the petitioner is one of the named accused persons. The said Simaluguri P.S. Case No. 76/2019 was initiated on the basis of the FIR dated 27.5.2019 lodged by Dr. Dilip Kumar Deka and Dr. Pawan Kumar Gogoi, the President/Secretary of Sanchay Aru Rindan Sanchay Samitee of Gargaon College. The allegations in the FIR are misappropriation of the society fund. The petitioner was arrested and thereafter released on bail by this court. Being aggrieved by the action of freezing two Saving Accounts, the petitioner has come before this court seeking for necessary direction for defreezing the accounts.

3. The learned counsel for the petitioner specifically raised an issue that the police official during the investigation failed to abide by the provisions stipulated under Section 102 of the Cr.P.C. and as such the action of freezing the SBI Savings Accounts of the petitioners are illegal and liable to defreeze the same.

4. In view of the issue raised before this court, Mr. Pegu was directed to take necessary instruction from the concerned police officials as to whether there was any violation of the provision under Section 102 of the Cr.P.C. The respondent No. 8 being the investigating officer filed an affidavit on 06.02.2021 wherein a specific mention was made that the procedure under Section 102 of the Cr.P.C. could not be duly followed. Mr. Borbhuiya in view of the admission made in the affidavit by the respondent No. 8 sought for a direction to defreeze the said accounts of the petitioner. The said prayer is objected vehemently by Mr. Pegu on the ground that the petitioner may be allowed to withdraw her subsistence allowance so deposited in the accounts in view of her suspension presently but not beyond that.

5. From the contention of both the learned counsel, it is found that admittedly there was violation of the provision under Section 102 of the Cr.P.C. which is reproduced below:

102. Power of police officer to seize certain property.

(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 in charge of a police station, shall forthwith report the seizure to that officer.

(3) 1 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, [or where there is difficulty in securing proper accommodation for the custody of such property, or where the continued retention of the property in police custody may not be considered necessary for the purpose of investigation], 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.

6. Section 102 of the Cr.P.C. stipulates that 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