Andhra HC (Pre-Telangana)
Smt.Karreddula Aruna Devi vs Branch Manager,Andhra Bank ... on 11 November, 2014
Author: A.Ramalingeswara Rao
Bench: A.Ramalingeswara Rao
THE HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE A.RAMALINGESWARA RAO
WRIT PETITION No.7082 of 2007
11-11-2014
Smt.Karreddula Aruna Devi. Petitioner
Branch Manager,Andhra Bank P.G.R.L.C.Jr.College Branch,Vikasnagar,
Dilsukhnagar, Hyderabad,And others.Respondents
1Counsel for petitioners:Sri P.Pandurang Rao
Counsel for the Respondents : GP for Home
Sri N.Satchidanand
<Gist:
>Head Note:
? CITATIONS:
1. 1994 (1) ALT (Crl.) 119 (Karn.)
2. 1996 (3) ALT 215 (DB)
3. (1999) 7 SCC 685
THE HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE A.RAMALINGESWARA RAO
WRIT PETITION No.7082 of 2007
ORDER:
Heard the learned Counsel for the petitioner, learned Counsel for the second respondent and the learned Government Pleader for respondent Nos.3 and 4.
2. The petitioner states that she deposited an amount of Rs.3,10,000/- in her bank account in the first respondent bank for the purpose of medical treatment to her husband. The said amount was taken from identifiable persons. When she wanted to withdraw the money on 13.07.2000 it was informed by the first respondent that a written request was made by the Police Inspector, Saidabad, Hyderabad fourth respondent, to freeze the said amount by letter dated 20.01.2000. As per the said communication of the fourth respondent, the said amount is a part of booty in Crime No.3 of 2000 in respect of which an FIR was lodged with the XII Metropolitan Magistrate, Hyderabad, showing the petitioner as accused No.5. It was alleged that the said amount was given by the son of the petitioner, who was another accused and the amount was deposited in the bank account of the petitioner. The husband of the petitioner died on 30.11.2000. Challenging the letter dated 20.01.2000 of the fourth respondent to the first respondent, the present Writ Petition was filed.
3. The second respondent filed a counter affidavit stating that the petitioner is the mother of accused No.1 and accused No.6 is the daughter-in-law of the petitioner. Accused Nos.1, 2 and 3 with the connivance of accused No.4, who was the attender in the State Bank of Hyderabad, Hindupur Branch, stole the demand draft book and by forging the signature of bank officials utilized the forged demand drafts and made purchases of two Maruthi cars, air tickets, gold jewellery, clothes, electronic items and concealed some jewellery and amounts with the petitioner, who is accused No.5. Though the trial Court initially acquitted accused Nos.2 and 5 and convicted accused No.1, the appeals preferred by accused Nos.1 and 4 in Criminal Appeal Nos.211 of 2010 and 210 of 2010 on the file of the learned III Additional Metropolitan Sessions Judge, Hyderabad, were remanded by judgment dated 19.10.2010 for fresh trial. In view of the same, all the accused have to face the trial.
4. It is submitted by the learned Counsel for the petitioner that freezing of amount is different from seizure in exercise of powers conferred under Section 102(1) of the Code of Criminal Procedure, and hence the letter issued by the fourth respondent could not have been acted upon. He relied on the judgment of the Karnataka High Court in M/s.Malnad Construction Company, Shimoga v. State of Karnataka . On the other hand, learned Government Pleader relied on a Division Bench decision of this Court in Mohd.Maqbool Ahmed @ Mateen v. The Deputy Commissioner of Police, Special Investigation Team, Hyderabad and the decision of the Supreme Court in State of Maharashtra v. Tapas D.Neogy .
5. The facts in the case are admitted. The amount of Rs.3,10,000/- lying to the credit of the savings bank account of the petitioner was sought to be frozen by the fourth respondent through a letter dated 20.01.2000, which is challenged in the present Writ Petition. The letter was issued for freezing the said amount on the ground that it forms part of the booty in Crime No.3 of 2000 and the petitioner was arrayed as accused No.5. The case is undergoing fresh trial after remand from the appellate Court.
6. Now, the point for consideration is whether the fourth respondent has the authority to order freezing of the bank account instead of seizing under Section 102(1) of the Code of Criminal Procedure.
7. Section 102 of the Code of Criminal Procedure reads as follows:
102. Power of police officer to seize certain property:-
(1) Any police officer, may seize any property which may be alleged or suspected to have been stolen, or which may be found under circumstances which create suspicion of the commission of any offence.
(2) Such police officer, if subordinate to the officer in charge of a police station, shall forthwith report the seizure to that officer.
(3) Every police officer acting under sub- section (1) shall forthwith report the seizure to the Magistrate having jurisdiction and where the property seized is such that it cannot be conveniently transported to the Court, he may give custody thereof to any person on his executing a bond undertaking to produce the property before the Court as and when required and to give effect to the further orders of the Court as to the disposal of the same.
8. The issue raised had conflicting opinions among various High Courts. The Allahabad, Karnataka, Gauhati and Delhi High Courts held that the Police have no power to freeze a bank account under Section 102 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, whereas the Madras High Court held that the bank account is a property capable of being seized under Section 102 of the Code of Criminal Procedure by the Investigating Officer. It held that the act of preventing the customer from exercising any right over the bank balance constitutes seizure of the bank balance, which in ordinary parlance is described as freezing. The consequences that flow from freezing a bank balance following a prohibitory order are the same, as those that flow from the physical removal of any movable property, following a seizure. The above decisions were considered by a Division Bench of this Court in Mohd.Maqbool Ahmed @ Mateens case (supra) and this Court agreed with the decision of the Madras High Court and disagreed with the views expressed by the Allahabad, Karnataka, Gauhati and Delhi High Courts.
9. However, the issue was considered by the Supreme Court in Tapas D.Neogys case (supra), wherein all the decisions cited above, except the Division Bench decision of this Court were considered and it was held as follows:
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 said Section 102(1), we see no justification to give any narrow interpretation to the provisions of the Criminal Procedure Code. It is well known that corruption in public offices has become so rampant that it has become difficult to cope up with the same. Then again the time consumed by the Courts in concluding the trials is another factor which should be borne in mind in interpreting the provisions of Section 102 of the Criminal Procedure Code and the underlying object engrafted therein, inasmuch as if there can be no order of seizure of the bank account of the accused then the entire money deposited in a bank which is ultimately held in the trial to be the outcome of the illegal gratification, could be withdrawn by the accused and the Courts would be powerless to get the said money which has any direct link with the commission of the offence committed by the accused as a public officer. We are, therefore, persuaded to take the view that the bank account of the accused or any of his relation is `property' within the meaning of Section 102 of the Criminal Procedure Code and a police officer in course of investigation can seize or prohibit the operation of the said account if such assets have direct links with the commission of the offence for which the police officer is investigating into. The contrary view expressed by Karnataka, Gauhati and Allahabad High Courts, does not represent the correct law. It may also be seen that under the Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988, in the matter of imposition of fine under sub-section (2) of Section 13, the legislatures have provided that the Courts in fixing the amount of fine shall take into consideration the amount or the value of the property, which the accused person has obtained by committing the offence or where the conviction is for an offence referred to in clause (e) of sub- section(1) of Section 13, the pecuniary resources or property for which the accused person is unable to account satisfactorily. The interpretation given by us in respect of the power of seizure under Section 102 of the Criminal Procedure Code is in accordance with the intention of the legislature engrafted in Section 16 of the Prevention of Corruption Act referred to above. In the aforesaid premises, we have no hesitation to come to the conclusion that the High Court of Bombay committed error in holding that the police officer could not have seized the bank account or could not have issued any direction to the bank officer, prohibiting the account of the accused from being operated upon (emphasis supplied)
10. In view of the above clear proposition of law laid down by the Supreme Court, the Writ Petition is liable to be dismissed, and the same is, accordingly, dismissed. The miscellaneous petitions pending, if any, shall stand closed. There shall be no order as to costs.
_________________________________ (A.RAMALINGESWARA RAO, J) 11.11.2014.