Point of Law: Term ‘forthwith’ only requires that the act should be performed with reasonable speed and any delay in the matter should be satisfactorily explained.

JUDGMENT :

Sanjay Kumar, J.

(Through video-conferencing)

1. Heard Mr. S. Niranjan, learned Additional Government Advocate, appearing for the appellants, and Mr. Ch. Ngongo, learned counsel for the respondent-writ petitioner.

2. Correctness and validity of the order dated 19.03.2020 passed by a learned Judge of this Court in W.P.(C) No.902 of 2018 is called in question in this writ appeal. By the said order, the learned Judge allowed the writ petition in part, directing the State authorities and the State Bank of India to permit the writ petitioner to withdraw an amount not exceeding Rs.50 lakh within a week from the date of receipt of the order but restrained the writ petitioner from withdrawing the balance amount after an amount not exceeding Rs.50 lakh was withdrawn by him, without seeking the Court’s leave. Aggrieved by the aforestated positive direction, the State of Manipur and its police authorities are in appeal before us.

3. By order dated 19.03.2021 passed in Misc. Case. (W.A.) No.25 of 2021, this Court stayed the operation of the order under appeal till the next date of hearing. The order was extended thereafter from time to time.

4. Shorn of needless detail, the relevant facts: - The respondent-writ petitioner (for brevity, ‘the respondent’) is a registered Special Class Contractor of the Public Works Department, Government of Manipur. His bank account, bearing No.00000020037793394, in the State Bank India at M.G. Avenue Branch, Imphal, was frozen in April, 2018, pursuant to the letter dated 06.04.2018 received by the Bank from the police stating that the account was suspected to be involved in criminal activities and requesting that it be frozen. Aggrieved by this action and claiming that no reason had been furnished therefor, the respondent filed the subject writ petition praying for a direction to the State authorities and the Bank to permit him to withdraw the amount in the frozen account.

The affidavit-in-opposition filed by the police authorities disclosed that Cheque No.015388/20 dated 31.03.2018 for a sum of Rs.76,55,531/- had been issued in favour of the respondent under Cheque Drawal Authority No.33/161/2016-W dated 30.03.2018 but on 02.04.2018, the Finance Department (Expenditure Section) addressed a letter to the Principal Secretary (Works) stating that the said Cheque Drawal Authority was a forged/fake one. FIR No.78(4) 2018 IPS was registered on 02.04.2018 under Sections 420, 468, 120B and 511 IPC along with Section 13(1) of the Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988, in relation thereto. On 03.04.2018, the Executive Engineer, Ukhrul Division, PWD, Manipur, requested the Branch Manager, State Bank of India, M.G. Avenue Branch, not to allow encashment of the said cheque. However, the respondent had deposited the cheque and the amount was credited to his account on 31.03.2018 itself. At that stage, the Additional Superintendent of Police (Law & Order), Imphal West, addressed letter dated 06.04.2018 to the Manager of the Bank, requesting him to freeze the account as it was suspected to be involved in criminal activities.

It was in this factual milieu that the learned Judge partly allowed the writ petition with directions. Perusal of the order reflects that the learned Judge was of the opinion that the police were not interested in completing the investigation, which had commenced as long back as in April, 2018, despite freezing the respondent’s bank account, which was unfair and unreasonable as it affected his livelihood and he was denied use of the monies lying therein. The learned Judge observed that no notice had been given to him before the account was frozen and he did not even figure as an accused in the FIR. The learned Judge held the delay on the part of the police in completing the investigation against them and noted that no material had been produced to connect the respondent with the alleged offences. Opining that no prima facie case was made out against him and there was no reason to deny him the right o