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

2017 Supreme(UK) 435

IN THE HIGH COURT OF UTTARAKHAND AT NAINITAL
Sudhanshu Dhulia, J.
Puran Chand Pal – Appellant
Vs.
Punjab National Bank – Respondent
Writ Petition (M/S) No. 454 of 2017
Decided On : 06-04-2017

Advocates Appeared:
For the Petitioner:Mr. Tapan Singh, Advocate
For the Respondent:Mr. I.P. Kohli, Advocate

The main legal point established in the judgment is that bank accounts can be considered 'property' under Section 102 of the Criminal Procedure Code, and the freezing of such accounts should be justified based on the circumstances.

Headnote:

Bank Account Freezing - Criminal Procedure Code - Section 102

Fact of the Case:

The petitioner's bank account was seized by the bank on the instructions of an Investigating Officer in relation to a First Information Report filed against the petitioner for alleged offenses under Sections 420, 406, 504, and 506 of the Indian Penal Code.

Finding of the Court:

The court found that the bank account could be frozen under the powers given to the Investigating Officer under Section 102 of the Criminal Procedure Code, but the circumstances did not justify the freezing of the account. The court ordered the petitioner to execute a bond for the alleged amount before the competent court, after which the bank would permit the petitioner to operate the account.

Issues: The main issue was whether the freezing of the petitioner's bank account was justified under the circumstances.

Ratio Decidendi: The court relied on the interpretation of Section 102 of the Criminal Procedure Code and the definition of 'property' as including bank accounts, as established in the case of State of Maharashtra v. Tapas D. Neogy (1999). The court emphasized that the freezing of the account should be justified and that alternative measures, such as the execution of a bond, could serve the purpose without freezing the account.

Final Decision: The court disposed of the writ petition with the observation that the petitioner should execute a bond for the alleged amount before the competent court, after which the bank would permit the petitioner to operate the Saving Bank Account.

JUDGMENT :

Sudhanshu Dhulia, J.

In this case, counter affidavit has been filed on behalf of the sole respondent. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that there is no need to file any rejoinder affidavit thereto. Hence with the consent of the parties, the writ petition is being heard today itself.

2. The petitioner is having a Saving Bank Account No. 3018000100004263 with the Punjab National Bank, Branch Village Shyampur, District Haridwar. The Bank has seized the account of the petitioner, apparently on the instructions of an Investigating Officer, who is investigating the matter in pursuance of the First Information Report Lodged against the petitioner. Hence, the present writ petition before this Court with the following prayers:-

"(i) Issue a writ, order or direction in the nature of mandamus commanding and directing the respondent to permit the petitioner to operate his bank account no. 3018000100004263 of P.N.B., Branch Village Shyampur, District Haridwar.

(ii) Issue any order relief, which this Hon'ble Court may deem fit and proper in the circumstances of the case, be passed in favour of the petitioner.

(iii) Cost of the petition be awarded in favour of the petitioner."

3. According to the petitioner, one Chatrapal Singh had expressed his desire to purchase his land measuring 2 bigha. After negotiations an agreement for sale was executed between the parties on 19.06.2016 by which the petitioner agreed to sell his land to Chatrapal, who had initially transferred a sum of Rs. 9.50 lakh (Rupees Nine Lakh & Fifty Lakh Only) in the account of the petitioner. Admittedly the so called agreement for sale has not been registered.

4. Subsequently, since the petitioner did not turn up for execution of sale deed in favour Chatrapal Singh, a First Information Report was registered at Police Station Shyampur, District Haridwar against the petitioner under Sections 420, 406, 504 and 506 of I.P.C. by one Shoukin. The First Information Report refers to the agreement for sale and thereafter reference of amount deposited in the bank account of the petitioner as well as further allegations of cheating etc.

5. In the counter affidavit, the respondent/bank has annexed a letter dated 06.09.2016 whereby the Investigating Officer of the case requested the Branch Manager to freeze the saving bank account of the petitioner. However, the order does not disclose whether the freezer is due to commission of an offence much less there is no disclosure of any circumstances which may create suspension of commission of any offence.

6. All the same, on the instructions of the Investigating Officer, for freezing the account of petitioner, the account was freezed by the Bank/respondent. The only question before this Court would be therefore to determine as to whether under these circumstances, the freezing of the account of the petitioner is justified. The matter relates to the powers of seizer to the Investigating Officer, which has been given under sub section (1) of Section 102 of Cr.P.C. Whether the Investigation Officer had complied with the Statutory requirement of informing the learned Magistrate concerned about the so called freezing of the account or not.

7. The learned counsel for the petitioner though would argue that the powers which have been given to the Investigating Officer under sub section (1) of Section 102 of Cr.P.C. are the powers to seize a property which may be alleged or suspected to have stolen or which may be found under circumstances which create suspicion of the commission of any offence. These ingredients, however, are not present in the present case, as a bank account cannot be held to be a property.

8. This Court, however, is not inclined to accept this argument as sub-section (1) of Section 102 of Cr.P.C. clearly says that any police officer may seize any "property" which may be alleged or suspected to have been stolen, or which may be found under circumstances which create suspension of the commission of any offence. "Property" wo







Click Here to Read the rest of this document

1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
Judicial Analysis

AI

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