Uttarakhand High Court
Puran Chand Pal vs Punjab National Bank Haridwar on 6 April, 2017
Equivalent citations: 2017 CRI. L. J. 4252, (2018) 181 ALLINDCAS 333 (UTR) (2017) 101 ALLCRIC 515, (2017) 101 ALLCRIC 515
Author: Sudhanshu Dhulia
Bench: Sudhanshu Dhulia
IN THE HIGH COURT OF UTTARAKHAND AT NAINITAL
Writ Petition (M/S) No. 454 of 2017
Puran Chand Pal ... Petitioner
Vs
Punjab National Bank ... Respondent
Mr. Tapan Singh, Advocate, present for the petitioner.
Mr. I.P. Kohli, Advocate, present for the respondents/Bank.
Hon'ble Sudhanshu Dhulia, J. (Oral)
1. In this case, counter affidavit has been filed on behalf of the sole respondent. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that there is no need to file any rejoinder affidavit thereto. Hence with the consent of the parties, the writ petition is being heard today itself.
2. The petitioner is having a Saving Bank Account No. 3018000100004263 with the Punjab National Bank, Branch Village Shyampur, District Haridwar. The Bank has seized the account of the petitioner, apparently on the instructions of an Investigating Officer, who is investigating the matter in pursuance of the First Information Report Lodged against the petitioner. Hence, the present writ petition before this Court with the following prayers:-
"i) Issue a writ, order or direction in the nature of mandamus commanding and directing the respondent to permit the petitioner to operate his bank account no.
3018000100004263 of P.N.B., Branch Village Shyampur, District Haridwar.
ii) Issue any order relief, which this Hon'ble Court may deem fit and proper in the circumstances of the case, be passed in favour of the petitioner.
iii) Cost of the petition be awarded in favour of the petitioner."
3. According to the petitioner, one Chatrapal Singh had expressed his desire to purchase his land measuring 2 ¾ bigha. After negotiations an agreement for sale was executed between the parties on 19.06.2016 by which the petitioner agreed to sell his land to Chatrapal, who had initially transferred a sum of `9.50 lakh (Rupees Nine Lakh & Fifty Lakh Only) in the account 2 of the petitioner. Admittedly the so called agreement for sale has not been registered.
4. Subsequently, since the petitioner did not turn up for execution of sale deed in favour Chatrapal Singh, a First Information Report was registered at Police Station Shyampur, District Haridwar against the petitioner under Sections 420, 406, 504 and 506 of I.P.C. by one Shoukin. The First Information Report refers to the agreement for sale and thereafter reference of amount deposited in the bank account of the petitioner as well as further allegations of cheating etc.
5. In the counter affidavit, the respondent/bank has annexed a letter dated 06.09.2016 whereby the Investigating Officer of the case requested the Branch Manager to freeze the saving bank account of the petitioner. However, the order does not disclose whether the freezer is due to commission of an offence much less there is no disclosure of any circumstances which may create suspension of commission of any offence.
6. All the same, on the instructions of the Investigating Officer, for freezing the account of petitioner, the account was freezed by the Bank/respondent. The only question before this Court would be therefore to determine as to whether under these circumstances, the freezing of the account of the petitioner is justified. The matter relates to the powers of seizer to the Investigating Officer, which has been given under sub section (1) of Section 102 of Cr.P.C. Whether the Investigation Officer had complied with the Statutory requirement of informing the learned Magistrate concerned about the so called freezing of the account or not.
7. The learned counsel for the petitioner though would argue that the powers which have been given to the Investigating Officer under sub section (1) of Section 102 of 3 Cr.P.C. are the powers to seize a property which may be alleged or suspected to have stolen or which may be found under circumstances which create suspicion of the commission of any offence. These ingredients, however, are not present in the present case, as a bank account cannot be held to be a property.
8. This Court, however, is not inclined to accept this argument as sub-section (1) of Section 102 of Cr.P.C. clearly says that 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 suspension of the commission of any offence. "Property" would mean "movable" or even "immovable property".
8. The Hon'ble Apex Court in State of Maharashtra Vs Tapas D. Neogy reported in 1999 (7) SCC 685 has held that bank account would also be a property as defined under sub section (1) of Section 102 of C.P.C. The relevant portion of the judgment (supra) reads as under:-
"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 4 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."
9. Considering the above judgment of the Hon'ble Apex Court as well as facts of the present case at hand, as regarding the bank account being property, there is no doubt that in a given set of circumstances account of a person can be freezed by the Investigating Officer under the powers given to him under sub section (1) of Section 102 of Cr.P.C.
10. The question would be whether the present circumstances justifies the order of the Investigating Officer. The order does not say anything, which may justify the freezing of the account. Moreover, the purpose of freezing of the account is that, the amount, the petitioner is alleged to have cheated, should not be withdrawn, which can be taken care of, without freezing of the account.
11. Under these circumstances, the purpose can be well served, if the petitioner execute a bond for a sum of `9.50 Lakh (Rupees Nine Lakh and Fifty Only) before the competent court, where the charge-sheet has been filed, and thereafter a copy of which would be given by the petitioner to the concerned bank. Subsequently, the bank shall forthwith permit the petitioner to operate his Saving Bank Account.
12. With the aforesaid observations, the writ petition stands disposed.
(Sudhanshu Dhulia, J.) 06.04.2017 Aswal