Police Officer has jurisdiction to seize certain property in course of investigation.

The petitioner has filed the above petition seeking for a direction to direct the 2nd respondent to revoke the instructions given to the bank authorities for freezing the account of the petitioner herein and his firms and to permit the petitioner to operate the accounts of the petitioner.

2. The petitioner/third party has filed this petition against the order of the 2nd respondent directing the banks to freeze his four accounts in connection with crime No. 32 of 2002 on the file of the Inspector of Police, Fair land police station, Salem.

3. The above petition came up before me for admission on 04-10-2002 and on that day, on behalf of the prosecution, Mr. Thambidurai, learned government advocate has taken notice and the matter was posted today. I heard both sides.

4. Mr. Suthanthiram, learned counsel appearing for the petitioner submitted as follows;-

The petitioner is a resident of salem and carrying on business of mining, purchase, sales and conversion of minerals and chemicals along with his family members in the name of Abirami minerals and chemicals, Sekar Mines, Sekar sales syndicate. The said firms are maintaining current account in State Bank of India Nos. 01050 070010, 01050 050025 and 01050 070480 respectively and also personal savings bank account No. 100 in Allahabad bank, Salem. The said bank accounts were frozen by the banks on the instructions given by the 2nd respondent herein. The petitioner is not served with the said prohibitory order, but the bankers have sent intimation to the petitioner. The respondent/police said to have given such instructions allegedly on the basis of the confession statement of one Prabhakaran, who is facing a case for the offences under Sections 465, 468, 471, 420 and 120 of IPC. According to the learned counsel for the petitioner, the petitioner is not at all involved in the said case nor he has anything to do with the business of the said Prabhakaran; that the petitioner's firms are maintaining reputation and the transaction in respect of the said four bank accounts are covered by cheques and drafts. The learned counsel also produced statement of accounts of three current accounts and also pass book of the savings bank account to justify it and prayed for revoking the prohibitory order issued by the police to the banks.

5. Mr. Thambidurai, learned government advocate appearing for the respondents, on instructions from the police vehemently opposed the petition and submitted that the said Prabhakaran, Managing Director of Business Solutions has collected deposits from various persons, but he failed to repay the same; that a case in Crime no. 32 of 2002 for the offences under Sections 465, 468, 471, 420 and 120 of IPC was filed against him and other accused; that in the confession statement made by the said Prabhakaran before the respondents/police he has stated that the petitioner's father has received a sum of Rs. 5 lakhs in one occasion and some other amounts in two occasions and that the said amount was suspected to have been passed on to the petitioner herein. The learned Government advocate also produced the confession statement and prayed for dismissal of the petition.

6. I have carefully gone through the records placed before me namely statement of bank accounts and confession statement of Prabhakaran. The said documents do not support the case of the prosecution to prohibit the operation of the bank account.

7. No doubt, under Section 102 of Cr.p.c., a police officer in the course of investigation can prohibit the operation of the bank account, as the bank account is property provided it is found under circumstances creating suspicion that an offence has been committed. Section 102 of Cr.P.C. runs 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 p