Document Fragment View
Fragment Information
Showing contexts for: 102 crpc in M/S. Comfort Intech Limited vs The State Of Telangana on 27 August, 2018Matching Fragments
41) In view of the rival contentions and considering the grounds urged in the petitions as well as written submissions of both the counsel, the points that arise for consideration are as follows:
(1) Whether the petitions under Section 482 Cr.P.C questioning the proceedings under Section 102 Cr.P.C is maintainable in view of the alternative remedy available under the provisions of Cr.P.C.?
(2) Whether the non compliance of recording satisfaction under Section 102(1) Cr.P.C of alleged non compliance of Section 102(3) of Cr.P.C vitiates the entire proceedings of freezing of demat accounts and other accounts mentioned in Column No.3 of table mentioned above? If so, whether the orders passed by the 3rd respondent is liable to be set aside?
55) Same question came up before the Apex Court in a judgment reported in State of Maharashtra vs. Tapas D.Neogy 6.
56) In the facts of the above judgment, a crime was registered against the respondents for various offences punishable under Sections 120-B, 467, 468, 471 and 420 IPC Section 13 (2) read with Section 13 (1) (d) of the Prevention of Corruption Act,1988. During investigation, the bank accounts of the respondents were freezed by exercising power under Section 102 Cr.P.C and one of the contentions urged before the Court is that the account is not property of the petitioner but Section 102(1) Cr.P.C. permits the seizure of any property pertaining to any offence. Apex Court held that the account is the "property" of the 2nd respondent therein referring to various judgments and concluded that the accounts of respondent is the "property" within the meaning of Section 102 Cr.P.C. and the police officer in the course of investigation can seize or prohibit the operation of the said account if such assets have direct links (1997) 7 SCC 685 with the commission of offence, which the police officer is investigating into.
83) Learned counsel for the 2nd respondent would contend that when the investigation is pending or not completed, the Court cannot defreeze the accounts, freezed by the investigating agency by exercising power under Section 482 Cr.P.C and it seriously affects the investigation process. He placed reliance on judgement of Apex Court in Teesta Atul Setalvad's case (supra 1) wherein the Apex Court held that the sweep and applicability of Section 102 Cr.P.C is no more res integra. The question has been directly considered and answered in State of Maharashtra vs. Tapas D.Neogy's case (supra 2) wherein the Court took the view that the bank account of the accused or any of his relation is 'property' within the meaning of Section 102 Cr.P.C 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. Therefore, the challenge to the action of seizure of bank account of any person which may be found under circumstances creating suspicion of the commission of any offence cannot be countenanced. The bank account need not only of the accused but it can be any account creating suspicion about the commission of an offence. As regards freezing of bank accounts, it is noticed that same has been followed by giving intimation to the magistrate as required under Section 102(3) Cr.P.C and there was nothing in sub-section 2 giving prior notice to the account holder.
89) To sum up, the Deputy Superintendent of Police, EOW CID Telangana State recorded his satisfaction as to the suspension of the amounts lying to the credit of various accounts is misappropriated by Mr.Anil Agarwal who is one of the director of these companies and other shell companies and laundered the same into those companies in compliance of Section 102(1) of Cr.P.C. He also complied with the requirements under Section 102(3) of Cr.P.C by letter dated 19.07.2017 in Crl.P.No.7351 of 2018. Non compliance of Section 102(3) Cr.P.C does not vitiate the proceedings. No prior notice of intimation is required to be given before passing an order under Section 102 Cr.P.C.