Indian Kanoon - Search engine for Indian Law

60) In view of Section 457 Cr.P.C for claiming custody of the property or release of the property attached or operation of it is prohibited, the petitioners can approach the presiding officer of the Court where the proceedings are pending, for release of the property, during the pendency of the investigation, by way of interim custody to the petitioners. In the present case, it is the contention of the petitioners that no intimation is given to the jurisdictional Magistrate in compliance of Section 102 (3) of Cr.P.C soon after the seizure of the property. By letter dated 27.04.2017, the investigating officer i.e., Deputy Superintendent of Police EOW, CID TS addressed a letter to the 3rd respondent to freeze the demat accounts of these petitioners, while marking notice to National Stock Exchange and Department of Corporate Services. On 19.07.2017, an intimation was given to the 2nd respondent by the Metropolitan Magistrate, Cyberabad, L.B.Nagar about the seizure of the accounts in Cr.No.248 of 2013. This intimation is in compliance of Section 102 (3) of Cr.P.C. This freezing of the property was intimated to the Magistrate in compliance of 102(3) Cr.P.C prima facie but belatedly. However, petitioners approached this Court after lapse of more than a year by filing these petitions under Section 482 Cr.P.C. and by the date of approaching this Court, the respondent No.1 complied with the requirements of Section 102(3) of Cr.P.C. Therefore, when the property was seized, the same was intimated to the Magistrate showing that the amounts lying to the credit of the demat accounts of the petitioners and other accounts with the 3rd respondent which cannot be produced before the magistrate in compliance of Section 451 or 457 of Cr.P.C. When the accounts of the petitioners were freezed, which is property and hand over to the Magistrate, the remedy available to these petitioners is only under Section 457 Cr.P.C to release the property or to give interim custody, subject to conditions if any imposed by the Magistrate. Instead of approaching jurisdictional Magistrate by filing a petition under Section 457 Cr.P.C, the petitioners approached this Court invoking inherent jurisdiction.

65) In view of the law declared by various Courts including a judgment of Supreme Court in State of Gujarat v.

MANU/MP/0020/1958 (1980) CLT 415 MANU/OR/0154/1987 Shyamlal Mohanlal Choksi13 the provision of reporting to the Magistrate would only be to ensure an order of the disposal of the property either on superdari or otherwise during the pendency of the case/investigations under Section 457 Cr.P.C. This purpose stood achieved when the petitioners themselves moved applications for release of their accounts and FDRs on the ground that these were needed for day to day affairs. This application was not moved under Section 457 Cr.P.C as the counsel for the petitioners could not disclose the provision under which the application was moved despite repeated queries.

79) This question came up before the Apex Court in Shyamlal Mohanlal Choksi's case (supra 9) wherein it is held that the provision of reporting to the Magistrate would only be to ensure an order of the disposal of the property either on superdari or otherwise during the pendency of the case/investigations under Section 457 Cr.P.C. This purpose, stood achieved when the petitioners themselves moved applications for release of their accounts and FDRs on the ground that these are needed for day to day business transactions. This application was not moved under Section 457 Cr.P.C. Moreover in the facts of the present case, an intimation by letter dated 19.07.2017 was given in compliance of Section 102(3) of Cr.P.C in Crlp.No.7351 of 2018 but not in other petitions. Thus, assuming for a moment, Section 102(3) is not complied, it does not vitiate the entire proceedings, freezing the accounts. In fact these petitioners have not raised such plea which is an adjudicatory fact in the main petition but for the first time, it was urged before this Court at the time of arguments.

2013 (3) MWN (Cr.) 40 2000 (1) MLJ 408 (Mad) 2003 Crl.LJ.2779

82) Earlier in Aranganayagam's case (supra 14) held that if an offence registered against the accused and passed an order under Section 102, freezing the accounts of the accused and the Court took a view that police under Section 102(3) of Cr.P.C shall forthwith report the seizure to the Magistrate having jurisdiction. Simply because the police officer failed to comply with Section 102(3) Cr.P.C the entire freezing of accounts is not vitiated. Therefore, the law laid down by the Courts consistently including Division Bench of this Court and other judgments of Apex Court in State of Gujarat v. Shyamlal Mohanlal Choksi (supra 9), keeping in view the purpose of compliance of Section 102(3) of Cr.P.C, it is difficult to hold that non-compliance of Section 102(3) vitiates entire freezing of accounts. Moreover, in the case on hand, intimation was given in Crl.P.No.7351 of 2018 but at belated stage. The purpose of intimation is only to enable the jurisdictional Magistrate to dispose of the property during the pendency of enquiry or investigation under Section 457 Cr.P.C. The petitioners themselves may approach the jurisdictional Magistrate for appropriate relief, to release the accounts from prohibitory orders under Section 457 Cr.P.C which can be granted by the Magistrate in exercise of jurisdiction under the provisions of Section 457 Cr.P.C. Therefore, non compliance of Section 102(3) Cr.P.C is not a ground to quash the proceedings at this stage.