Back
Amit Singh – Appellant
Versus
State of U. P. – Respondent
JUDGMENT :
RAJNISH KUMAR, J.
1. The instant writ petition had been filed by the petitioner Amit Singh for defreezing the Bank account of the petitioner bearing Account No. 733910110001489 in Bank of India, Branch Panki, Kanpur Nagar and to allow the petitioner to operate his bank account. Subsequently by way of amendment the petitioner has also prayed for quashing the order dated 18.03.2021, contained in annexure no. 11 to the writ petition by means of which the account of the petitioner has been got freezed by the respondent no. 2 i.e. Station House Officer, Police Station-Kalyanpur, District-Kanpur Nagar in relation to Case Crime No. 1504 of 2020, under Sections 420, 467, 468, 471, 120-B IPC, Police Station-Kalyanpur, District-Kanpur Nagar.
2. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the account of the petitioner has been seized in violation of the provisions made under Section 102 of the Code of Criminal Procedure (hereinafter referred to as Cr.P.C.). The mandatory requirements of Section 102(3) Cr.P.C. has not been followed and the respondent no. 2 has not informed the concerned Magistrate regarding seizure of the bank account, forthwith. Therefore the Constitutional right
Right to property is still a constitutional right under Article 300-A of the Constitution of India though not a fundamental right and the deprivation of the right can only be in accordance with the p....
The main legal point established in the judgment is that the procedure for freezing bank accounts under the Unlawful Activities (Prevention) Act, 1967, specifically Section 25, is directory in nature....
The freezing of the bank account under section 102 Cr.P.C. must be in compliance with the statutory requirements, and the intimation to the court must be made forthwith as required by the law.
The main legal point established in the judgment is that when an alternative statutory remedy is available, a writ petition may not be maintainable. The court emphasized the importance of seeking app....
Provisions of Section 102(3) of Cr. P.C. are not mandatory in nature.
The central legal point established in the judgment is that the freezing of a bank account under Section 102 of Cr.P.C requires the fulfillment of pre-conditions, including a reasonable suspicion of ....
Seizure of assets under S.102 CrPC requires compliance with statutory provisions and cannot be based solely on suspicion.
Term ‘forthwith’ only requires that the act should be performed with reasonable speed and any delay in the matter should be satisfactorily explained.
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
Scan Me!
India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!
For Daily Legal Updates, Join us on :
Back to top
