The delay in reporting the seizure of property to the concerned Magistrate does not necessarily vitiate the seizure, and statutory remedies under the Code of Criminal Procedure are available to the aggrieved parties.

ORDER :

P. Naveen Rao, J.

1. In these two writ petitions the petitioners challenge freezing of their bank accounts in exercise of power under Section 102(1) of Code of Criminal Procedure (Cr.P.C.). As the issue in the writ petitions is same, they are heard and considered together.

2. Facts of these cases, to the extent relevant, are hereunder:

W.P. No. 13363 of 2020:

3. On 03.01.2020, person by name Sri Ved Prakash Agarwal lodged a complaint in Central Crime Station, Police Control Room, Hyderabad, alleging that a fake will document stated to have been executed by late Anand Swaroop was brought into existence by forging the signature of late Anand Swaroop. Based on the contents of complaint, Crime No. 2/2020 was registered under Sections 420, 465, 467, and 468 of Indian Penal Code (for short, 'IPC'). During the course of investigation, the complainant lodged petition dated 19.03.2020 alleging that accused no.1, petitioner no. 2 herein, illegally opened bank account in IDBI Bank in the name of A.P. Products and illegally diverting huge amounts from other bank accounts of A.P. Products. The Investigating Officer addressed letters to the Branch Managers of 15 banks, where accounts were opened and operated in the name of late Anand Swaroop, his firm, etc., and requested the Banks to freeze the bank accounts. According to the Police, on 08.05.2020, by way of electronic mail, the Court of Metropolitan Magistrate was informed about the freezing of bank accounts and the intimation memo was filed on 17.08.2020 in the court of XII Additional Chief Metropolitan Magistrate at Nampally.

W.P. No. 15056 of 2020:

4. On 16.03.2020, complaint was filed by person by name Sri G. Prasad Rao alleging that the incumbent Secretary of Singareni Collieries Officers Co-op. House Building Society Limited illegally, unauthorizedly selling the plots and illegally diverted the proceeds of the sale transactions to his private bank account. On further investigating into the crime, the Investigating Officer, prima facie, found that a part of sale proceeds was deposited in his personal bank account and on 18.06.2020 he has ordered seizure of bank account No. 378268809396 in the State Bank of India, Saraswathi Nagar Branch. The Investigating Officer filed memo in the Court of VII Additional Chief Metropolitan Magistrate at Nampally intimating freezing the bank account, which was taken on file by the Court on 05.10.2020.

5. Thus, in W.P. No. 13363 of 2020 the decision to freeze the bank account was issued on 19.03.2020, and intimation on freezing of bank account was actually given to Chief Metropolitan Magistrate on 08.05.2020. In W.P. No. 15056 of 2020, bank account was ordered to be freezed on 18.06.2020. Intimation to jurisdictional Magistrate was given on 05.10.2020. This is the time line on which the issue in these two cases rests.

6. According to learned counsel Sri Srinivas, as mandated by Section 102(3) Cr.P.C., immediately after freezing of bank account intimation has to be furnished to the jurisdictional Magistrate, whereas in these two cases, intimation was not given immediately and, therefore, the decisions to freeze the bank accounts are vitiated on that ground alone and the freezing orders are not sustainable in law. According to the learned counsel, compliance with Section 102(3) of Cr.P.C., is mandatory and non-compliance thereof would vitiate the orders freezing bank accounts.

7. Before exercising the power under Section 102 Cr.P.C., the Police Officer has to assess the need to freeze the bank account and after formation of an opinion, supported by the reasons, he can freeze, whereas in the instant cases, no reasons are assigned before ordering for freezing of bank accounts. He would submit that the respondent-Police cannot improve in the form of counter-affidavit to support their stand of the reasons for freezing. He would further submit that material on record would clearly show that freezing of bank account is not on account of necessity to freeze as as