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

2021 Supreme(UK) 39

IN THE HIGH COURT OF UTTARAKHAND AT NAINITAL
MANOJ KUMAR TIWARI, J.
Mohd Rizwan Ansari – Petitioner
Versus
State of Uttarakhand and Others – Respondents
Writ Petition (M/S) No. 699 of 2021
Decided On : 17-06-2021

Advocates:
Advocate Appeared:
For the Petitioner: Mr. Kurban Ali.
For the Respondents: Mr. G.S. Sandhu, Mr. G.S. Negi, Mr. Ashish Joshi.

Point of Law: Power of Investigating Officer to freeze Saving Bank Account of any person - Banks is not bound to comply with such direction as regards freezing of Saving Bank Accounts of petitioner.

Headnote:

Constitution of India, 1950, Art. 226 and Criminal Procedure Code, 1973, Secs. 91 and 175 – Writ in the nature of mandamus – Freezing of bank accounts of the petitioner pursuant to the notice u/s 91, Cr.P.C. – By the investigating officer/sub-inspector – Writ petition against – Challenging the legality of the notice – Investigating Officer had referred to Sec. 175 of IPC in the notice issued u/s 91 of Cr.P.C. – Invocation of Power – In u/s 175 Investigating Officer has no power to freeze the SB account of petitioner/or any person – Direction issued by Investigating Officer to the Branch Managers to freeze the Bank accounts – Not sustainable in the eye of law – Direction issued to Banks to defreeze the bank account of petitioner – Writ petition allowed.

(Paras 5 to 9)

Hkkjrh; lafo/kku] 1950] vuqPNsn 226 vkSj n.M izfØ;k lafgrk] 1973] /kkjk 91 ,oa 175 & ijekns'k dh izÑfr dk fjV & vUos"k.k djus okys vf/kdkjh@mifujh{kd }kjk /kkjk 91 n.M izfØ;k lafgrk ds v/khu uksfVl ds vuqlj.k esa ;kfpdkdÙkkZ ds cSad [kkrksa dks Ýht ¼'kkar½ djuk & fo#) fjV ;kfpdk & uksfVl dh oS/kkfudrk dks pqukSrh nsrs gq, & vUos"k.k djus okys vf/kdkjh us n.M izfØ;k lafgrk dh /kkjk 91 ds v/khu tkjh dh xbZ uksfVl esa Hkkjrh; n.M lafgrk dh /kkjk 175 dks lUnfHkZr fd;k gS & 'kfDr dk viokgu & /kkjk 175 n.M izfØ;k lafgrk ds v/khu vUos"k.k djus okys vf/kdkjh dks ;kfpdkdÙkkZ vFkok fdlh vU; O;fDr ds lsfoax cSad [kkrksa dks Ýht ¼'kkar½ djus gsrq funsZ'k tkjh fd;k x;k Fkk & tks fof/k dh n`f"V esa la/kk;Zxh; ugha gS & cSad dks ;kfpdkdÙkkZ ds cSad [kkrksa dks iqu% [kksyus gsrq funsZ'k tkjh & fjV ;kfpdk LohÑrA

¼izLrj 5 ls 9½

JUDGMENT :

MANOJ KUMAR TIWARI, J.

1. By means of this writ petition, petitioner has sought following relief:-

    (i) Issue a writ order or direction in the nature of Mandamus commanding and directing the respondents Bank concerned to immediate defreeze he Bank accounts of the petitioner and further permit the petitioner to operate both bank accounts in the name of the petitioner.

(ii) Issue a writ, order or direction in the nature of mandamus commanding and directing the respondents concerned to compensate the petitioner with regard to financial losses occurred on account of illegally imposed hold in the bank account of the petitioner.

2. Petitioner’s Saving Bank Accounts with State Bank of India, Branch Ramnagar and Canara Bank, Branch Ramnagar have been frozen pursuant to a notice under Section 91 Cr.P.C. issued by Investigating Officer/Sub-Inspector, Police Station, Haldwani, District Nainital. Thus, feeling aggrieved, petitioner has approached this Court.

3. A copy of the said notice has been brought on record along with counter affidavits filed by respondent nos. 2 and 3.

4. A perusal of the said notice dated 11.02.2021 reveals that Investigating Officer has directed the Branch Managers of the concerned Banks to keep on hold all transactions in the Saving Bank Account of the petitioner and also to forthwith freeze the Saving Bank Accounts of the petitioner till conclusion of investigation pending against him. It has been further provided in the notice that if the Branch Managers fail to comply with the direction, then necessary punitive action under Section 175 I.P.C. shall be taken against them.

5. Section 91 of Cr.P.C. is reproduced below:-

    “91. Summons to produce document or other thing:

(1) Whenever any Court or any officer in charge of a police station considers that the production of any document or other thing is necessary or desirable for the purposes of any investigation, inquiry, trial or other proceeding under this Code by or before such Court or officer, such Court may issue a summons, or such officer a written order, to the person in whose possession or power such document or thing is believed to be, requiring him to attend and produce it, or to produce it, at the time and place stated in the summons or order.

(2) Any person required under this section merely to produce a document or other thing shall be deemed to have complied with the requisition if he causes such document or thing to be produced instead of attending personally to produce the same.

(3) Nothing in this section shall be deemed:

(a) to affect sections 123 and 124 of the Indian Evidence Act, 1872 (1 of 1872), or the Bankers’ Books Evidence Act, 1891 (13 of 1891).

(b) to apply to a letter, postcard, telegram or other document or any parcel or thing in the custody of the postal or telegraph authority.”

6. Perusal of Section 91 of Cr.P.C. reveals that it does not authorise a Court or any Police Officer to freeze the Bank Account of any person. Such power, however, is available to a Police Officer under Section 102 of Cr.P.C., with a caveat as provided in Sub-Section (3) of Section 102 of Cr.P.C., namely, the Police Officer, who has seized any property, has to forthwith report the seizure to the concerned jurisdictional Magistrate.

7. In the present case, no intimation has been given to the concerned Magistrate. The Investigating Officer has referred to Section 175 of I.P.C. in the notice issued under Section 91 of Cr.P.C. The Investigating Officer has warned the Branch Managers that in case they fail to comply the direction issued in the notice, then action may be taken against them under Section 175 of I.P.C.

8. Section 175 of I.P.C. is reproduced below for ready reference:-

    “175. Omission to produce document to public servant by person legally bound to produce it - Whoever, being legally bound to produce or deliver up any [document or electronic record] to any public servant, as such, intentionally omits so to produce or deliver up the same, shall be punished with s

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