Back
: Prior Magistrate Nod Not Mandatory to Freeze Accounts Under Section 106 BNSS
In a significant ruling with wide-ranging implications for financial crime investigations, the has held that police are not required to obtain prior approval from a Magistrate to implement a on bank accounts, provided the action is taken as an investigatory and preservative measure under .
Justice M. Nagaprasanna delivered the judgment, clarifying the legal distinction between "" under Section 106 and "" under . The decision came in a batch of petitions filed by the State challenging orders that had directed the release of seized gold and de-freezing of accounts belonging to JAR Gold Retail Private Limited, a digital gold-selling platform under investigation for alleged violations of the .
Case Background: Digital Gold Firm Under Scrutiny
The controversy traces back to a registered by the against JAR Gold Retail Private Limited, which operates "Jar," a mobile application allowing users to purchase and sell digital gold. Following inputs from the Reserve Bank of India's (RBI) Market Intelligence Unit and a subsequent public notice cautioning investors about digital gold platforms, authorities initiated a probe. The investigation led to the of a substantial quantity of gold and the freezing of the company's bank accounts.
JAR Gold's directors had previously challenged the very registration of the FIR before the High Court, and later the , but were unsuccessful. Subsequently, the company approached the seeking release of the seized gold and de-freezing of its accounts, which was granted in . Aggrieved, the State approached the High Court to challenge this direction.
Legal Conundrum: vs.
The central legal question before the High Court was whether the power to freeze a bank account during an investigation required prior judicial approval under , or whether it fell within the ambit of Section 106 of the BNSS, which requires only post-facto reporting to a Magistrate.
The State argued that the had overstepped its jurisdiction by releasing the seized assets. JAR Gold, on the other hand, contended that the entire freezing process was vitiated due to non-compliance with Section 107, which mandates approaching a Magistrate for of property. Consequently, they claimed that the entire account freezing by the police was illegal.
Key Findings: Distinguishing from
The High Court painstakingly analyzed the statutory framework, tracing the legal history from to the new BNSS. The court held that while Section 106 BNSS empowers police to seize any property suspected to be connected to an offence, Section 107 provides a separate and distinct mechanism for the of property deemed to be "."
"This Court cannot lend its protective hands to the petitioners and obliterate the crime in its incipient stage,"
the court noted while dismissing the initial challenges. The judgment further elaborated that while Section 106 serves an investigative and preservative purpose, Section 107 establishes a judicial and adjudicatory framework for forfeiture and restoration of property. The court opined that placing a
is a part of the police's investigative powers, subject to reporting the
to the jurisdictional Magistrate under
.
Implications: Safeguarding Investigations and Protecting Citizens
The judgment carries significant weight for the protection of victims' rights, especially in cases of cybercrime and financial fraud. The court observed that requiring prior judicial approval in every instance would create dangerous delays, allowing fraudsters to transfer and dissipate money quickly, thus creating hurdles for the law.
"The law cannot insist that the Police first complete a judicial pilgrimage while the
are electronically galloping from account to account,"
observed the court. However, the court also noted that citizens who face a
are not left without remedies, as they can always approach a competent court or the appropriate authorities to challenge the freezing of their funds.
