High Court of Judicature at Madras
THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE R. REGUPATHI
K. Mahendran - Appellant
Versus
State rep. by the Sub Inspector of Police - Respondents
Crl.O.P.No.23225 of 2006 & Crl.M.P.No.1 of 2006
Decided On : 29 November 2006
Section 102(3) of Cr.P.C. requires the officer effecting seizure to report the same to the Magistrate having jurisdiction. Section 105(E)(2) of Cr.P.C. states that the order of seizure shall have no effect unless confirmed by the court within 30 days. The court finds that the seizure of the bank account was not done in accordance with these provisions.
Fact of the Case:
Petitioner's bank account was frozen under instructions from the police in connection with a criminal investigation. The petitioner argues that the freezing of the account was not done in accordance with the provisions of the law. The prosecution argues that the amount in the account is related to the crime and may be required for the purpose of the case.
Finding of the Court:
The court finds that the seizure of the bank account was not done in accordance with the prescribed procedure. The order issued by the bank becomes non-est and is set aside. The bank is directed to keep the amount in deposit under Fixed Deposit and the petitioner is allowed to operate his account. The petitioner is also given the liberty to seek further relief from the magistrate if necessary.
Ratio Decidendi: The freezing of a bank account must be done in accordance with the prescribed procedure under the law. Failure to follow the procedure renders the order non-est.
Result: The order freezing the petitioner's bank account is set aside. The bank is directed to keep the amount in deposit under Fixed Deposit and the petitioner is allowed to operate his account. The petitioner is given the liberty to seek further relief from the magistrate if necessary.
(Petition filed under Section 482 of Cr.P.C to pass an order to the respondent herein, setting aside his instructions issued to the petitioner's bankers M/s.State Bank of India, Saligramam branch No.49, Arcot Road, Saligramam, Chennai 600 093 to freeze the petitoner's account in C.A.No.30012025699 dated 2.6.2006.)
The petitioner is an accused subsequently added as A.7 in the case in Crime No.392 of 2006 on the file of the respondent police for the offence punishable under Sections 380, 465, 467, 468, 471, 474 and 420 IPC.
2. The case of the prosecution is that A.1 to A.6 used international credit card and cheated to the tune of Rupees twenty five lakhs. All the accused are alleged to have stayed in the office of the petitioner and on the statement of other accused, premise of the petitioner has been searched and 30 passports have been recovered. During the course of investigation, under instructions by the respondent police vide their letter dated 2.6.2006, the bank account bearing C.A.No.30012025699 in State Bank of India, Saligramam branch No.49, Arcot Road, Saligramam, Chennai 600 093 has been frozen by the State Bank of India by their order dated 23.6.2006, which reads as follows:
"This is to inform you that the operations in the above mentioned current account at our branch has been frozen with effect from 2.6.2006 under instructions from Sub Inspector of Police, Central Crime Branch, Egmore, Chennai 600 006 vide their letter dated 2.6.2006 in connection with criminal investigation."
3. The learned counsel for the petitioner submits that as per the order issued by the respondent police, the account has been frozen and under the provisions of law, as per Section 102(3) of Cr.P.C., the officer effecting seizure shall forthwith report the same to the Magistrate having jurisdiction, but in the present case, the same has not been done. Further, Section 105(E)(2) of Cr.P.C reads as follows:
"said order passed shall have no effect unless the said order is confirmed by an order of the said court, within a period of 30 days of its being made"
Under such circumstances, it has been contended that the impugned order passed under instructions by the respondent police becomes non-est. Further, because of the order passed, the petitioner could not operate his account, which has caused a great prejudice to him. It is further submitted that the petitioner has deposited some amount in the bank and he is willing to keep the said amount in deposit, without withdrawing, till he receives appropriate orders in this regard.
4. Per contra, the learned Additional Public Prosecutor submits that it is true that the respondent has not approached the learned Magistrate within the stipulated period and obtained an order in this regard. However, there are materials to substantiate that the amount in deposit is related to the crime and may be required for the purpose of the case. On verification of the Income-Tax report, it is seen that the amount in deposit is not reflected. Therefore, there is prima facie case made out by the prosecution.
5. I have perused the materials available on record.
6. The order has been passed by the State Bank of India under instructions by the respondent police on 23.6.2006. The seizure effected, as per Section 102(3) of Cr.P.C., would have been intimated to the learned Magistrate forthwith and the same has not been done. As per Section 105(E)(2) of Cr.P.C., proceedings would have been initiated before the learned Magistrate by the respondent police and the respondent police would have received an order in this regard. Such steps have not been taken by the respondent police.
7. Under such circumstances, the procedure prescribed is violated. The order dated 23.6.2006 becomes non-est and further direction is necessary. Accordingly, the order dated 23.6.2006 issued by the State Bank of India under instructions by the respondent police is set aside. The Manager of the State Bank of India, Saligramam branch No.49, Arcot Road,
AI
Login now and unlock free premium legal research
Login to SupremeToday AI and access free legal analysis, AI highlights, and smart tools.
Login
now!
India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!
Copyright © 2023 Vikas Info Solution Pvt Ltd. All Rights Reserved.