The main legal point established in the judgment is that money in a bank account is considered as property within the meaning of Section 102 of the Cr.P.C., and the investigating officer has the authority to issue orders prohibiting the operation of the accounts of the accused in the bank.

This Crl.M.C. is field by the accused in Crime No. 154/97 registered by the Manarcadu Police to set aside the proceedings taken by the investigating officer for freezing the accounts maintained by the accused-petitioner as per Annexures C to G and to allow the petitioner's company to operate the accounts in the normal course of business with all the banks in which the company has got deposits and to direct the 2nd respondent to return all the books of accounts, computers and other documents seized from the office of the company so as to enable the petitioner to carry on the business of the company without any let or hindrance, under section 482 of the Cr.P.C.

2. Crime No. 154/97 is registered by the Manarcadu Police against M/s. Prizindia Ltd. a public limited company of which the petitioner is the Chairman and Managing Director alleging offence punishable under Section 420 of the I.P.C. on the basis of the complaint field by Johnykutty K. Joseph. During the course of the investigation the investigating officer found that the petitioner had collected large amounts from various depositors promising to invest the amount very lucratively and cheated them. The investigating officer also found that large amounts so collected by the petitioner were deposited in various banks. Therefore, the investigating officer issued notices to the different banks in which the petitioner had deposited the amounts, under Section 102 of the Cr.P.C. directing the banks to freeze the operation of the accounts of the petitioner with the bank. The investigating officer also seized several documents from the Head Office and different branches of the petitioner's company. The petitioner has filed this petition under section 482 of the Crl.P.C. seeking to quash the notices issued by the investigating officer under Section 102 of the Cr.P.C. to various banks freezing the accounts, alleging that those notices are illegal and beyond the competence of the investigating officer, which is not permitted under the provisions of Section 102 of the Cr.P.C. and also, for return of the documents in order to enable the petitioner to conduct the business without any let or hindrance.

3. The counsel for the petitioner and the Public Prosecutor were heard.

4. When the above Crl.M.C. came up for hearing the counsel for the petitioner did not address any argument regarding the release of the documents alleged to have been seized by the investigating officer from the petitioner's company and he confined his arguments to quash the notices issued by the investigating officer to the various banks freezing the operation of the accounts maintained by the petitioner.

5. The counsel for the petitioner vehemently submitted that Section 102 of the Cr.P.C. does not empower the police officer to direct the bank not to allow the accused to withdraw money from the bank and therefore the notices issued by the 1st respondent herein evidenced by Annexures C to G to the bankers of the petitioner freezing the accounts maintained by the petitioner and directing the bankers not to pay any amount from the petitioner's account, are illegal and unsustainable and therefore they are liable to be quashed.

6. Section 102 of the Cr.P.C. reads as follows :

"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) 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