Back
2013 Supreme(Mad) 3284
High Court of Judicature at Madras
P. DEVADASS, J.
R. Sivaraj & Another
Versus
The State rep. by Inspector of Police, District Crime Branch, Salem
Criminal O.P.Nos. 576 & 577 of 2013
Decided On : 17-09-2013
Advocate Appeared:
For the Petitioners:J.Pothiraj, Advocate.
For the Respondents: C.Emalias, Addl. Public Prosecutor.
The main legal point established in the judgment is the mandatory requirement under Section 102(3) Cr.P.C for the investigating officer to report the freezing of bank accounts to the Magistrate.
Headnote:
Bank Accounts - Freezing of Bank Accounts - Section 420 IPC, Section 4 & 5 of Prize Chits and Money Circulation (Banning) Act,1978, Section 5 of TNPID Act, Section 102 Cr.P.C - The court discussed the freezing of bank accounts under Section 102 Cr.P.C, the mandatory reporting of freezing of bank accounts to the Magistrate, and the statutory duties of investigating officers in pursuing the investigation. Key legal provisions such as Section 102 Cr.P.C and relevant case laws were highlighted and influenced the court's decision to direct the defreezing of the accounts.
Fact of the Case:
The petitioners sought direction to defreeze their bank accounts, which were frozen in connection with investigation into offences under Section 420 IPC and Section 4 & 5 of Prize Chits and Money Circulation (Banning) Act,1978. The investigating officer had not reported the freezing of the bank accounts to the Magistrate, leading to the petitioners' request to de-freeze them.
Finding of the Court:
The court found that the investigating officer's failure to report the freezing of the bank accounts to the Magistrate was a violation of the mandatory requirement under Section 102(3) Cr.P.C, and thus directed the respondent to defreeze the accounts.
Issues: The main issue was the validity of the freezing of the bank accounts and the investigating officer's failure to report the freezing to the Magistrate.
Ratio Decidendi: The court held that the investigating officer's failure to report the freezing of the bank accounts to the Magistrate was a violation of the mandatory requirement under Section 102(3) Cr.P.C, and thus directed the defreezing of the accounts.
Final Decision: The court directed the respondent to defreeze the bank accounts maintained by the petitioners, as the freezing was vitiated by the investigating officer's failure to report it to the Magistrate.
Since both the criminal original petitions are connected on facts and on law, they were heard together and are being disposed of by this common order.
2. The spouses, Sivaraj, petitioner in Crl.O.P.No.576 of 2013, and Indirani, petitioner in Crl.O.P.No.577 of 2013, seek direction to the respondent to defreeze their bank accounts, which have been frozen in pursuance of the prohibitory orders of the Investigating Officer (respondent) in connection with investigation into certain offences.
3. There were allegation of duping of several persons that they will get more on deposit of their money with the accused. Ultimately, the depositors were cheated. The main cheat is A-1, Jagadeesan. He had many associates. One of them is petitioner Sivaraj. On the basis of complaints of persons, who were cheated, the DCB, Salem registered Crime Nos.24,25 and 26 of 2012 for offences under Section 420 IPC and Section 4 & 5 of Prize Chits and Money Circulation (Banning) Act,1978. Sivaraj is A14 and A15 respectively in Crime Nos.25 & 24 of 2012. Subsequently, the investigation has been transferred to EOW-II Unit, Salem. Section of law also has been altered to Section 420 IPC and Section 5 of TNPID Act. It is pertinent to note that the Special Judge under the said Act is an Officer in the cadre of District Judge, in certain aspects under the Act he is deemed to be a Magistrate and he has all the powers of a Magistrate. Unless specifically excluded the provisions of Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 applies to the proceedings under T.N.P.D.I Act.
4. Sivaraj is maintaining two accounts in the IDBI Bank Ltd., Four Road Branch, Salem. They are (1) 211104000016603 and (2) 0211104000093772 . In the same bank, his wife Indirani is maintaining Account No.0211104000106856. She is not an accused.
5. The investigating officer served prohibitory order on the said bank, requesting to freeze their accounts. Accordingly, they were frozen. These criminal original petitions were directed to de-freeze them.
6. According to the learned counsel for the petitioners, the freezure of the bank account has not been immediately reported to the Magistrate. This is against Section 102(3) Cr.P.C. So, the accounts have to be de-freezed.
7. In support of his said submissions, the learned counsel would cite PADMINI VS. THE INSPECTOR OF POLICE, D.C.B, TIRUNELVELI AND ORS. [2008 (3) CTC 657], VINOSHKUMAR RAMACHANDRAN VALLUVAR VS. THE STATE OF MAHARASHTRA [2011 (1) MWN (Cr.) 497 (FB)(Bom.)] and the order of this court made in Crl.O.P.No.13103, etc, of 2013, dated 30.8.2013 [T.SUBBULAKSHMI VS. THE COMMISSIONER OF POLICE, CHENNAI AND ORS.].
8. The learned Additional Public Prosecutor would not dispute that the investigating officer has not reported the freezing of the bank accounts to the Magistrate. However, he would submit that it is an irregularity. It will not vitiate the freezing of the bank accounts.
9. I have anxiously considered the rival submissions, perused the status report of the investigating officer and the decisions cited.
10. When information as to the commission of a cognizable offence is reported to the officer in-charge of the Police Station, he has to register an FIR (See : Section 154, Cr.P.C.). Thereafter, it is his statutory duty to investigate the crime (See : Section 156(1)). As per Section 2(h), Cr.P.C., "investigation" refers to all the actions taken by the Investigating Officer to collect the required evidence in connection with the crime reported. It is to bring home the offence to the offender.
11. In pursuing the investigation, the investigation officer has to take various steps. (See: Section 157, Cr.P.C.) Investigation consists of proceeding to the scene of crime, recording of statement of witnesses (See : Sections 160, 161, Cr.P.C.), search and seizure of documents, material objects etc., arrest of the accused.
12. Right from the Privy Council decision in EMPEROR VS. KHWAJA NAZIR AHMAD, [AIR 1945 PC 18] and the Hon'ble Apex Court's decis
