SupremeToday Landscape Ad
Back
Next
Judicial Analysis Court Copy Headnote Facts Arguments Court observation
Listen Audio Icon Pause Audio Icon
judgment-img

1959 Supreme(All) 216

IN THE HIGH COURT OF ALLAHABAD
A. P. Srivastava, J.
TEXTILE TRADERS SYNDICATE LTD., BULANDSHAHR - Appellant
Versus
STATE OF U.P - Respondents
Criminal Misc. 1592 Of 1959
Decided On : 11/09/1959

Advocates Appeared:
K.L.Sharma

Headnote:

CRIMINAL PROCEDURE CODE - SECTIONS 95 AND 550 - INTERPRETATION AND APPLICATION - ORDERS PASSED UNDER SECTIONS 95 AND 550 - VALIDITY AND SCOPE - SEIZURE OF PROPERTY - MEANING AND SCOPE.

Fact of the Case:

The applicant, a limited company, challenged two orders passed by the District Magistrate and a police officer under Sections 95 and 550 of the Cr.P.C., respectively. The orders directed the post office and a bank to withhold letters, parcels, and money orders addressed to the applicant and to freeze the applicant's bank account.

Finding of the Court:

The court held that the order passed under Section 95 was vague and could not apply to future letters and parcels or to unspecified items. The court also held that the order passed under Section 550 was not valid as it did not involve the actual physical seizure of property but rather a prohibition on the bank from paying money to the applicant.

Issues: 1. Whether the order passed under Section 95 was valid and could apply to future letters and parcels and unspecified items? 2. Whether the order passed under Section 550 was valid and could be used to freeze the applicant's bank account?

Ratio Decidendi: 1. The court interpreted Section 95 of the Cr.P.C. to apply only to documents, parcels, or things in the custody of the Postal or Telegraph authorities that are necessary for the purpose of investigation, inquiry, trial, or other proceeding and are in existence at the time the order is passed. 2. The court interpreted the word "seize" in Section 550 of the Cr.P.C. to mean the act of taking actual physical possession of movable property capable of being so possessed.

Final Decision: The court quashed the order passed under Section 550 and partially quashed the order passed under Section 95, limiting its application to letters and parcels received before the date of the order and excluding unspecified items.

A. P. SRIVASTAVA, J.

( 1 ) THIS is an application under Section 561-A, Cr. P. C. The prayer is that two orders, one passed by the opposite party No. 4 on 24-10-1958 under Section 550 Cr. P. C. and the other passed by the opposite party No. 2 on 31-10-1958 under Section 95 Cr. P. C. , be quashed.

( 2 ) THE applicant is a limited company known as Textile Traders Syndicate Ltd. , Bulandshahr, and has filed the application through Sri K. L. Sharma, its Managing Director. The district authorities suspected that the applicant company was a bogus company and that certain offences punishable under Sections 420 and 406 I. P. C. had been committed in connection with it by its managing Director Sri K. L. Sharma. Sri Dwarka Singh opposite party No. 4, detective inspector of the C. I. D. Investigating Branch was therefore authorised to investigate the matter. He started investigation and found that an account had been opened in the name of the company with the punjab National Bank of Bulandshahr. He reported to the District Magistrate that certain parcels, letters and money-orders had been received and were being received by the post office at Bulandshahr in the name of the company which were required in connection with the investigation that he was carrying out. On 28-5-1958 the District Magistrate passed an order under Section 95 of the Cr. P. C. , but that order was quashed in part by this Court on 16-10-1958. Soon after that on 31-10-1958 the opposite party no. 2 passed an order which reads thus: "whereas an investigation for offences under Sections 420/406 I. P. C. is being carried out by sri Dwarka Singh, Detective Inspector, C. I. D. , Investigation Branch, Agra, against the firms m/s Textile Traders Syndicate. Bulandshahr and New Saraswati Sugar Mills, Bulandshahr which are reported to be bogus firms and whereas letters and parcels etc. have been and are being received in your office (office of the Post Master, Bulandshahr) addressed to the aforesaid firms and offences have been and are being committed in respect of the same and whereas in my opinion sudi letters and parcels etc. , are necessary and are wanted for the purposes of the aforesaid investigation. I, S. N. Mehrotra, I. A. S. District Magistrate, Bulandshahr therefore, hereby order you (Post master, Bulandshahr) under Section 95 (i) Cr. P. C. , to deliver such letters and parcels etc. to the aforesaid Sri Dwarka Singh for the purpose of the aforesaid investigation. My order under Section 95 Cr. P. C. dated 28-3-58 on the subject is hereby cancelled. "

( 3 ) ON 24-10-1958 the opposite party No. 4 Sri Dwarka Singh addressed an order under Section 550 of the Cr. P. C. to the Manager Punjab National Bank, Bulandshahr, which reads thus:

"in connection with the investigation of Cr. Case No. 148 of 1958 under Sections 420/406 I. P. C. of P. S. Kotwali, Bulandshahr which is pending with me it has been found that a current account in the name of M/s Textile Traders Syndicate Ltd. , Bulandshahr is lying in your bank. The investigation has revealed that the above mentioned firm is bogus and the amount to its credit in your bank hag been earned by committing offences of cheating etc. I would inform you that the amount to the credit of the above mentioned firm has been seized by me under S, 550 of the Cr. P. C. and it should not be paid to any person till further orders. "


( 4 ) THE applicant contends that the two impugned orders quoted above are not valid in law and should be quashed.

( 5 ) SO far as the order passed by the District Magistrate opposite party No. 2, under Section 95 Cr. P. C. is concerned two objections are taken. It is urged in the first place that the order is vague as besides the words "letters and parcels" the District Magistrate has used the word "etc. " also and on account of the use of that word the Post Master has withheld certain money orders which had been received for payment to the applicant. The argument is that the District Magistrate had no. right to pass


















Click Here to Read the rest of this document

1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
SupremeToday Portrait Ad
supreme today icon
logo-black

An indispensable Tool for Legal Professionals, Endorsed by Various High Court and Judicial Officers

Please visit our Training & Support
Center or Contact Us for assistance

qr

Scan Me!

India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!

For Daily Legal Updates, Join us on :

whatsapp-icon Back to top