State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission
Mr. Jose Fernandes, Major Of Age, vs The Branch Manager on 28 November, 2013
BEFORE GOA STATE CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL COMMISSION, PANAJI- GOA FA No. 91 /2013 Mr. Jose Fernandes, major of age, r/o M.H.N. 55, Pixem Dongri, Vasco-Da-Gama, Goa Since deceased through legal heirs 1. Ms. Carolina Fernandes, major of age, Spinster and 2. Mr. Santana Fernandes, major of age, Unmarried, advocate by profession, Both residents of M.H.N. 55, Pixem Dongri, Vasco-da-Gama, Goa. ..Appellants v/s. 1) The Branch Manager State Bank of India Dr. F.L. Gomes Road Vasco-da-Gama, Goa. 2) The Divisional Manager, Zonal Office, State Bank of India, St. Inez, Panaji, Goa. ....Respondents Appellant/Complainant No. 2 is present in person. Coram: Shri. Justice N.A. Britto, President Smt. Vidhya R. Gurav, Member Dated: 28/11/2013 ORDER
[Per Shri Justice N.A. Britto, President The consumer complaint filed on 24/07/08 has been dismissed by the Lr. District Forum, by order dated 20/09/13.
2. We have heard complainant No. 2 at the stage of admission of this appeal.
3. The facts would show that the complainant Jose Fernandes (since deceased, and now represented his legal heirs) was working as a Branch Manager of Goa State Co-op. Bank Ltd., Marmagoa Branch. There was another Sudesh G. Amonkar working alongwith him, as a peon, and who according to the complainant had a bad record. The complainant had a Savings Bank Account with the said Goa State Co-op. Bank Ltd., and so also with the OP/State Bank of India and with the latter from 24/3/03. The complainant withdrew a sum of Rs. 9,15,000/- on 24/4/06 from his said account with Goa State Co.op Bank and deposited the same with the OP State Bank of India. According to the complainant, he transferred the said amount from one bank to another fearing that his savings account with Goa State Co-op. Bank may be frozen because the said Sudesh G. Amonkar had committed forgery and misappropriated a huge amount from the said branch. However, the fact remains, that upon a complaint filed by Shri. A.V. Shinde, Managing Director of the said Goa State Co-op. Bank, Crime No. 19/06 came to be registered against the complainant and the said Shri. Sudesh G. Amonkar under Sections 406, 468, 471, 420 read with 34 IPC and the police officer investigating the case by letter dated 12/5/06 informed the OP - State Bank of India that both the said persons were arrested and that the complainant should not be allowed to withdraw any amount from State Bank of India without taking permission from the police station. In other words, by virtue of the said letter dated 12/05/06, the amount in the savings bank account of the complainant lying with the OP - State Bank of India - was seized by the police.
4. The complainant claims that he went to the SBI on 1/6/06 to update his passbook to make some payments to his friend Pramod Sansgiri towards purchase of a flat, and came to know that his savings bank account was frozen. The complainant, thereafter, made an application to the JMFC which was registered as Criminal Application No. 22/06/A and the Lr. JMFC by order dated 18/7/06 ordered to defreeze the said account of the complainant with the OP - State Bank of India.
5. The complainant then filed a complaint to recover an amount of Rs. 25,000/- as the expenditure incurred by him towards advocate fees; Rs. 3 lacs towards loss of opportunity to purchase the flat; and Rs. 60,000/- towards mental torture, etc., all with 18% interest.
6. The complaint came to be dismissed holding that:
if circumstances exist creating suspicion of commission of any offence in relation to the bank account, Section 102(1) is attracted empowering the police officer investigating the offence to seize the bank account and issue order prohibiting the account from being operated upon.
7. Shri. S. Fernandes concedes that the complainants account with State Bank of India was frozen by the police officer under Section 102 Cr.P.C. but relying upon State of Maharashtra vs. Tapas D. Neogy, (1999) 7 SCC 685, submits that the investigating officer ought to have taken consent of a Judicial Magistrate before freezing the said account.
8. We are unable to accept the said submission.
Section 102 Cr. P.C. is reproduced in the impugned order of the Lr. District Forum dated 20/09/13 and we do not propose to reproduce the same herein. Section 102 Cr. P.C. deals with power of police officer to seize certain property and sub section (1) thereof provides that any police officer may seize any property which may be alleged or suspected to have been stolen, or which may be found under circumstance which create suspicion of the commission of any offence.
In Tapas D. Neogy (supra) the Apex Court has taken a view that a bank account of the accused or any of his relations is property within the meaning of Section 102 Cr. P.C. and a police officer in the course of investigation can seize or prohibit the operation of the account.
9. Admittedly, the money in the savings bank account of the complainant was seized by the investigating officer in the said crime No. 19/06 and therefore OP was bound to obey the said order of seizure and there was nothing which the OP bank could have done about the same except to obey the said order. It was for the complainant to challenge the said order and the complainant did the same as a result of which the savings bank account was defreezed by the Lr. JMFC, Vasco Da Gama, by order dated 18/07/06.
10. There is nothing in Section 102 Cr.P.C. or for that matter in the Lr. Judgement of the Apex Court in the case of Tapas D. Neogy (supra) even to remotely suggest that the investigating officer is required to obtain the consent of the Magistrate, before such seizure.
11. In Rakesh Bhartia, 2013(3) CPR 226 the National Commission has held that the Bank cannot afford to disobey notice issued under Section 226(3) of the Income Tax Act, 1961.
12. There was no deficiency of service on the part of OP SBI in complying with the orders lawfully issued by the I.O u/s 102 Cr. P.C.
13. We therefore find there is no merit in this appeal and consequently we proceed to dismiss the same at the stage of admission, with no order as to costs.
[Smt. Vidhya R. Gurav] [Shri. Justice N.A. Britto] Member President