Seizure by police during investigation.

The two petitions, are by the Bharat Overseas Bank Limited, which is the Complainant in ‘X’ Crl.No. 790 of 1986, pending investigation with the second respondent, registered against one Ramalingam (hereinafter referred to as accused) who is the husband of Prema Ramalingam, the first respondent in Crl.M.P,No. 8865 of 1987 (hereinafter referred to us the first Respondent) and are directed against the orders passed under Sec. 451, Cr.P.C, by the Additional Chief Metropolitan Magistrate, Egmore, Madras, in M.P.Nos. 184 of 1987 and 208 of 1987, respectively holding the second respondent’s seizure of the amounts in the accounts of the accused and the first respondent in the petitioner Bank as illegal, and directing the release of the amounts.

2. Facts briefly are: On a Complaint by the petitioner to the second respondent, alleging that accused Ramalingam, who was employed as an Officer in the petitioner Bank, had fraudulently collected large some of money from the branches of the Bank at George Town and Thiyagaraya Nagar, through accounts opened in the name of the fictitious persons, by forging credit advices and other bank records, a case in Crl.No. 790 of 1986 for offence under Secs. 467, 468, 471 and 420, I.P.C. was registered. During investigation accused Ramalingam when examined gave details of the transactions carried on by him. Investigation revealed that the accused had opened accounts in the different branches of the Bank, in the names of fictitious persons, had forged credit advices and other documents and collected large sums of money from the Bank. To deploy the funds so collected, the accused had opened several accounts in the names of himself and his family members in the Banks and other Institutions. These monies totalling Rs.5,70,000 routed through different Banks, were ultimately paid to the accused, who deposited the same in the accounts opened by him in his name and in the names of his family members. The second respondent, therefore, issued instructions to the Bank not to permit the accused and his family members to operate these accounts. The amounts, in the above accounts, were freezed.

3. The accused and his wife, the first respondent filed applications under Sec. 451, Cr.P.C, before the trial Court, for releasing the funds and for directing the Bank Authorities to permit them to operate their accounts. In both the petitions, the learned Magistrate, holding that under the Cr.P.C, the police have no right to issue such prohibitory orders regarding bank balance, directed their release. Aggrieved with the above orders, the petitioner has filed the present applications under Sec. 482, Cr.P.C. to have the orders of the Magistrate, set aside.

4. Thiru K.Asokan, learned counsel for the petitioner contended that the learned Magistrate erred in holding that the police had no powers, to seize bank balance. The powers of seizure under Sec. 102, Cr.P.C, ought to be read in conjunction with the provisions contained in Chapter 34 of the Code. According to the learned counsel, if during investigation, the police find, that money in a bank was obtained through the commission of a crime or that a crime was committed regarding that money, then it is not only the right, but also the duty of a police officer, to freeze the bank accounts, since that money has to be made available to the Court, for an order under Sec. 452, Cr.P.C, for restoration to the person entitled to it. Learned counsel placed reliance upon certain decisions which I shall refer to presently.

5. Per contra Thiru S.Srinivasan, learned counsel for the first respondent and for the accused Ramalingam contended, that the bank funds are not "property" and that under the Criminal Procedure Code, the police have no right to freeze bank funds, since the relationship between the Bank and its customer, is that of a debtor and a creditor and the Bank is under an obligation to pay back the money, to the customer, as and when required by the customer and once the mon