WP-4521-2021.doc

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY

CRIMINAL APPELLATE JURISDICTION

CRIMINAL WRIT PETITION NO. 4521 OF 2021

1. SDS Broking & Trading Auctioning Centre

OPC Pvt. Ltd.

through its M.D. Sudhir Dhananjay Sarode

& Anr.

…Petitioners

Vs.

1. The State of Maharashtra

through Sr.Police Inspector,

Crime Branch (Central Department)

… Respondent

****

Mr.Satish Borulkar a/w. Mr.Manoj Patil i/b Mr.Uday Bhanudas

Gavali for petitioners.

Ms.Anamika Malhotra, APP for respondent-State.

API Shashikant Pawar, Central Unit, Crime Branch, Navi Mumbai,

present.

CORAM

: N. J. JAMADAR, J.

CLOSED FOR ORDER ON: 20^th APRIL, 2022

PRONOUNCED ON : 28^th APRIL, 2022

ORDER :

1.

The challenge in this petition is to an order passed by

learned Judicial Magistrate, First Class, Vashi in Other Misc.

Application (Criminal) No.357 of 2021, whereby the prayer of the

petitioners to defreez the bank account Nos.(i) Saving A/c. No.

919010052600469 of Axis Bank Ltd., (ii) Saving A/c. No.

3913158677 of Kotak Mahindra Bank Ltd., (iii) Current A/c.No.

10190002381040 of Bandhan Bank, (iv) Saving A/c. No.

50200000504236 of Bandhan Bank, (v) Current A/c. No.

Shraddha Talekar, PS

1/8

SHRADDHA

KAMLESH

TALEKAR

Digitally

signed by

SHRADDHA

KAMLESH

TALEKAR

Date:

2022.04.28

11:31:47

+0530

WP-4521-2021.doc

3113972684 of Kotak Mahindra Bank Ltd., (vi) Saving A/c. No. :

3112255290 of Kotak Mahindra Bank Ltd., came to be rejected.

2.

The petitioner No.1 is a company incorporated under the

Companies Act, 1956. The petitioner No.2 is the Director of

petitioner No.1. Crime was registered at C.R. No.02 of 2021 against

the petitioners for the offences punishable under sections 294(A)

and, 420 read with 34 of the Indian Penal Code, 1860 (‘the Code’),

sections 7(3), 9(1) of Lotteries (Regulation) Act, 1998, sections 4(a)

and 5 of the Maharashtra Prevention of Gambling Act, 1887, and

section 66-D of the Information Technologies Act, 2000. The

petitioner No.2 came to be arrested. Property was seized from the

premises of the petitioners. Bank accounts of the petitioners were

ordered to be freezed.

3.

The petitioners preferred an application for return of the

property and de-freezing of the bank accounts. The learned

Magistrate was persuaded to partly allow the application and

return part of the seized property. However, the prayer to de-freez

the accounts came to be rejected. Hence, the petitioners have

invoked the writ jurisdiction of this Court.

4.

I have heard Mr.Satish Borulkar, the learned counsel for the

petitioners, and Ms.Malhotra, the learned APP for the State.

Shraddha Talekar, PS

2/8

WP-4521-2021.doc

5.

Mr.Borulkar, the learned counsel for the petitioners

canvassed a two-pronged submission. First there was no

justi昀椀cation to order freezing of the accounts of the petitioner No.1

which is a corporate entity. Second, the action cannot be

sustained, as there is a fagrant violation of the mandate

contained in section 102 (3) of the Code of Criminal Procedure,

1973 (‘the Code’) to forthwith report the factum of seizure to the

jurisdictional magistrate.

6.

Ms.Malhotra submitted that indeed there is omission on the

part of the investigating agency to immediately report the freezing

of the accounts to the jurisdictional magistrate. In the aforesaid

view of the matter, in the peculiar facts of the case, it may not be

necessary to delve deep into the aspect as to whether the freezing

of the account satis昀椀es the requirement of sub-section (1) of

section 102 of the Code as the petition deserves to be allowed for

the non-compliance with the provisions contained in sub-section

(3) of section 102 of the Code.

7.

Section 102 of the Code reads as under :

Section 102 : Power of Police Of昀椀cer to seize

certain property : (1) Any police of昀椀cer may seize

any property which may be alleged or suspected

to have been stolen, or which m