Order On Board

30.03.2022 The aforesaid writ petitions are being disposed of by this common order as similar issue is involved for adjudication.

2. These writ petitions (criminal) have been preferred challenging the notice dated 22.02.2022 issued by SHO, Police Station Urla, District Raipur (CG) in connection with Crime No.52/2022 dated 16.02.2022 registered for the offence under Section 409 IPC whereby direction/request was made to the respondent No.2/Indusland Bank to freeze/hold the bank account No.259428833992, consequent of which respondent Bank has frozen the said account.

3. Facts of the case, in brief, are that a criminal case has been registered under the Crime No.52/2022 dated 16.02.2022 at Police Station Urla for the offence under Section 409 IPC against Hemraj Yadav & the driver of his truck and Ravi Verma & the driver of his truck on the complaint of one Vivek Agrawal. The said complainant alleges that he is a partner of Jai Jagdish Transport and his agency is authorized transporter for Hira Ferro Alloys Limited and Alok Ferro Alloys Limited. The said companies allegedly placed an order to Jai Jagdish Transport to transport silico-mangnese to ICD Mihan and ICD Borkheri from their respective factories situated at Urla, Raipur in lieu of which, silico-manganese was transported. Allegedly, on 12.02.2022, Jai Jagdish Transport received complaint that the silico-mangnese so received is adulterated upon which an inspection was carried out from which it is revealed that the said complaint is indeed true for which accused persons are responsible for being the owners and drivers of the trucks which were used for the purpose of transportation. Thereafter, during the investigating the respondent/State made a request/direction to the respondent No.2/Bank to freeze the account mentioned above.

4. Learned counsel for the petitioners submits that both petitioners/Company in the course of their routine business, had placed an order to respondent No.3 for supplying one container of coriander seeds and Jeera (cumin) respectively for the purpose of their export and for the said purpose Rs.44 Lacs and Rs. 50 Lacs respectively were deposited in the Bank Account No.259428833992 on 22.02.2022 as was directed by the respondent No.3. The petitioner supplied the ledger of the bank account but respondent No.3 did not respond to the order and on enquiry it was revealed that the concerned account was seized during investigation. It is submitted that the petitioners and their transactions were not connected with the aforesaid crime but still the blanket and sweeping direction/request issued by respondent No.1/State to the transaction officer to hold the bank account without verifying the transactions ultimately which causes the huge loss to the petitioners. Learned counsel further submits that action taken by the respondent/State under Section 102 Cr.P.C. is beyond the scope as the petitioners have fundamental rights to trade any business. Thus, these writ petitions are filed to issue appropriate direction to respondents to enabling the petitioners to withdraw/re-claim their amount deposited in the account in question.

5. On the other hand, learned State counsel submits that alternative remedies under the statutory law are available for the petitioners therefore, these writ petitions are not maintainable and therefore, liable to be dismissed.

6. Heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the petition along with documents annexed minutely.

7. In the case of State of Maharashtra Vs. Tapas D. Neogy reported in (1999) 7 SCC 685 has settled the law relating to seizure of bank accounts. The bank accounts are held to be property capable of seizure. In the said case in Paragraph 12 it is stated as under:-

“12. Having considered the divergent views taken by different High Courts with regard to the power of seizure under Section 102 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, and whether the bank account can be held to be “property” within the meaning of the sai