Document Fragment View

Matching Fragments

4. Shri D.K. Mohapatra, learned counsel appearing for the Vigilance Department, on the other hand, submitted that the documents seized during investigation clearly indicate that till the year 1995 neither accused public servant nor his son who is the Managing Director of the companies namely Zerina Marines Pvt. Ltd. and Zerina Constructions Pvt. Ltd. had sufficient sources of income. Rather son of accused-public servant had practically no income and was not filing tax return till year 1995. After 1995 suddenly income of the son of accused public servant has gone upto such extent that doubt arises in the mind of the Vigilance Department to the effect that accused-public servant might have invested huge amount from out of ill-got money in the aforesaid two companies as well as in the trust. He further submitted that some documents have been seized indicating that huge amount have been given on loan by the accused-public servant to his son and bank accounts also indicate that huge amount of money have been deposited in cash. Referring to the decision of the Apex Court reported in AIR 1999 SCW 3389 (State of Maharashtra v. Tapas D. Neogy) Sri Mohapatra submitted that the Vigilance Department has the authority under Section 201 of the Criminal Procedure Code to cause seizure of the bank accounts of the son of the accused public servant or accounts of the companies run by his son if the same has any nexus with commission of offence committed by the public servant for which investigation is going on. According to him since investigation is still in progress it may not be possible to hold at this stage that there is no nexus between the commission of offence by the public servant and the amount deposited in the bank accounts seized by the Vigilance Department.

6. Section 18 of the Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988 prescribes that, if from information received or otherwise, a police officer has reason to suspect the commission of an offence which he is empowered to investigate under Section 17 and considers that for the purpose of investigation or enquiry it is necessary to inspect any of the bankers' books, then he may inspect and banker's books in so far as they relate to the accounts of the persons suspected to have committed that offence or any other person suspected to be holding money on behalf of such person, and cause to be taken certified copies of the relevant entries therefrom and the bank concerned shall be bound to assist the police officer in the exercised of his powers under the said Section. It is very clear from the aforesaid Section that it is obligatory on the part of the Investigating Officer, in the event he got information as envisaged in the said provision, to make enquiry, take certified copies of the relevant entries causing seizure of the same. The aforesaid provision has been kept in the Act to empower the Investigating Officer to find out the investments or deposits made by accused public servant by himself or through others who may be relatives or friends for the purpose of finding out exact disproportionate assets in the hands of the accused-public servant. Section 102 of the Criminal Procedure empowers police officer to seize any property which may be alleged or suspected to have been stolen or which may be found under circumstance which creates suspicion of the commission of any offence. There is no doubt with regard to the authority of the Investigating Officer under Section 102 of the Cr. P. C. to cause seizure of any property which he feels may be connected with commission of any offence. Apex Court in the decision reported in the case of State of Maharashtra v. Tapas D. Neogy (supra) also made it very clear and the observations made by the Apex Court are as follows :

Though much reliance has been placed by Sri Mohapatra on the said decision, I am afraid that the facts of the said case are completely different than that of the present case. From the facts of the aforesaid case it appears that Tapas D. Neogy was an Architect and Town Planner in the Department of Town Planning of the Union Territory of Daman and Diu. The C.B.I., ACB, Mumbai registered three First Information Reports against the said Tapas D. Neogy and three others for the offence committed under the Prevention of Corruption Act as well as some of the offences under the Penal Code. In course of investigation bank accounts and lockers in the Indian Bank at Calcutta jointly held by the accused and his mother and brother were searched and sealed and another locker held by mother and sister of the accused was also searched and sealed. The Investigating Officer issued instructions to Managers of different banks not to allow accounts to be operated upon. Mother of the accused filed an application before the court to allow her to operate bank account and for return of documents and articles seized, claiming that they belong to her. Though Magistrate granted relief in respect of the locker in question but refused the mother to operate the bank account. The matter was carried to the Bombay High Court and the after analysing the provisions contained in Section 102 of the Cr.P.C. and after taking notice of several judgments of different High Courts, the Bombay High Court came to conclusion that the bank account of the accused or any relation of accused cannot be held to be the property within the meaning of Section 102 of the Cr.P.C. and also held that the Investigating Officer has no power either to seize the bank account or to issue any prohibitory order, prohibiting the operation of the bank account. Challenging the said order of the Bombay High Court the Maharashtra Government went in appeal to the Apex Court. The Apex Court on consideration of the aforesaid facts came to hold that under Section 102, Cr.P.C. police officer in course of investigation can seize or prohibit operation of bank accounts of such assets have direct links with the commission of the offence for which police officer is investigating into.