Back
IN THE GAUHATI HIGH COURT (HIGH COURT OF ASSAM, NAGALAND, MIZORAM AND ARUNACHAL PRADESH) KOHIMA BENCH
YARENJUNGLA LONGKUMER
Aphong Khoisia – Appellant
Versus
National Investigating Agency, Represented By Its Director General, Cgo Complex – Respondent
JUDGMENT :
YARENJUNGLA LONGKUMER, J.
The instant application under Article 226 of the Constitution of India has been preferred by the petitioner assailing the freezing of his bank accounts in connection with NIA Case No.RC- 10/2019/NIA/GUW pending before the Court of Special Judge, NIA, Dimapur Nagaland without following the due process as mandated under the Unlawful Activities (Prevention) Act, 1967 (UA(P) Act,1967).
2. Heard the learned counsel for the petitioner Mr. Imti Longjem as well as Mr. Sentiyanger, learned Special P.P for the respondent Nos.1 to 4 and Mr. R. Chakraborty, learned counsel for the respondent No.6.
3. The facts leading to the filing of this case is that the petitioner is the proprietor of a firm M/S Atwa Enterprises (herein referred to as the petitioner’s firm). The petitioner’s firm has an account bearing No.31650533776 in the State Bank of India,(SBI) Khonsa Branch Arunachal Pradesh. The petitioner’s firm also has another account bearing No.50200018467151 in the HDFC Bank Limited, Tinsukia Branch Assam. Both the accounts have been freezed by the respective banks on the instructions of the respondent No.1/NIA in connection with NIA Case No.RC-10/2019/NIA/GUW pe
The court ruled that freezing bank accounts under the UA(P) Act without following specified procedural safeguards constitutes an illegal seizure, violating principles of natural justice.
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....
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 main legal point established in the judgment is the requirement to follow the procedure laid down under Sec. 102 Cr.P.C and the need for sufficient evidence to support the freezing of a bank acco....
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 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.
It is a well-settled salutary principle that if a statute provides for a thing to be done in a particular manner, then it has to be done in that manner and in no other manner.
(1) Freezing of Bank Account – If a statute provides for a thing to be done in a particular manner, then it has to be done in that manner alone and in no other manner failing which it would fall foul....
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
