The bank account of the accused or any of his relations is considered 'property' within the meaning of Section 102 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, allowing the police officer to seize or prohibit the operation of such accounts if they have direct links with the commission of the offense under investigation.

JUDGMENT :

Pradipta Ray, J. - The writ Petitioner, a private limited Company through its Managing Director has filed this writ petition challenging the seizure of its properties mentioned in the seizure list and for a writ of mandamus commanding the opposite parties to release the properties seized including the Company's Books of Account and to allow the Company to operate its Bank account.

2. It appears that in connection with Bhubaneswar vigilance P.S. Case No. 28/99 u/s 13(1)(c) read with Section 13(2) of the Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988 a proceeding has been -initiated against one Sri Santosh Kumar Mishra. I.A. S.. In connection with investigation of the said vigilance case various properties of the Petitioner-company have been seized and its Bank accounts have been frozen on the allegation that die real owner of the company is the accused in the vigilance case and the Directors and the shareholders of the company are close relations of Shri Misra who are nothing but name-lenders. The Petitioner-company has denied any connection with Sri Santosh Kumar Misra, I.A.S. and, has claimed that all the share-holders have their independent source of income and all of them have invested their own money.

3. Appearing on behalf of the writ Petitioner. Mr. Bijan Ray, learned Counsel, has submitted that Section 102 of the Code of Criminal Procedure does not authorise the police to seize or freeze any bank account of the accused, not to speak-of any account belonging to a third party. Mr. Ray has referred to a Division Bench decision of this Court reported in Shri Umashankar Rath Vs. Director General-cum-lnspector General of Police, Vigilance and Others, in support of his submission. In the said judgment the Division Bench relied upon a decision of Gauhati High Court to hold that prohibiting a bank with which the accused has an account and a locker, not to pay any amount out of the account of the accused to the accused and not so allow.-the accused' to take away property from the locker is not seizure u/s 102, Code of Criminal Procedure. as the seizure as contemplated under is an act of taking possession of the property and as such no such order can be passed by a police officer.

4. Mr. Prusty, learned Government Advocate appearing on behalf of the opposite parties has.drawn attention of this Court to a decision of Punjab & Haryana High Court in Dr. Guru Charan Singh v. State of Punjab reported in Vol. 80 (1978) PLR 514, in which it has been held that a bank account suspected to belong to an accused in an investigation under the Prevention of Corruption Act is a property capable of being seized u/s 102. Cr. P.C.

5. Section 550 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1898 was the provision of seizure corresponding to 'present' Section 102 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973. The power of seizure u/s 550. Cr. P.C.. 1898 was interpreted by this Court in Babulal Agarwalla Vs. Province of Orissa and Others. In paragraph 16 of the said judgment it has been held that a police officer may seize any property under suspicious circumstances even in case of commission of non-cognizable offence. Kerala High Court in Krishnan Sukumaran Vs. Enforcement Officer, Cochin, also held

Section 550 of the Code of Criminal Procedure also empowers a police officer to seize any property which may be alleged or suspected to have been stolen or which may be found under circumstances, which creates suspicion of the commission of any offence.

The Delhi High Court also considered the scope of the power of the police officer to seize property u/s 102 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 in P.K. Parmar and Others Vs. Union of India and Another. 'In the said case Central Bureau of Investigation in exercise of power u/s 102 of the 'Code directed various banks, financial institutions and Post Offices to freeze the several accounts of the Petitioners therein. In the, said decision it has been held that a police officer has the power to seize or freeze the bank accounts by