Search Results Page
Search Results
1 - 10 of 18 (0.24 seconds)The Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988
State Of Maharashtra vs Tapas D. Neogy on 16 September, 1999
It
was observed also in the decision in State of Maharashtra ..vs.. Tapas
D.Nyogy (cited supra) that, there is no room to countenance to challenge
the action of the seizure of bank account of any person, which may be found
under circumstances creating suspicion of the commission of any offence.
17/25
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
Section 451 in The Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 [Entire Act]
Section 18A in The Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988 [Entire Act]
Ms Swaran Sabharwal vs Commissioner Of Police on 22 May, 1987
13. From the judgments relied by the learned counsel for
the petitioner, especially, the judgment reported in (1987) SCC Online Del
221 (Ms.Swaran Sabharwal ..vs.. Commissioner of Police), it is observed
that assuming that a bank account is 'property' within the meaning of
Section, it should be a property 'found under circumstances which create the
14/25
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
Crl.R.C.No.795 of 2021
suspicion of commission of offence to justify action under Section 102
Cr.P.C.'. There are no circumstances attendant upon the bank account or its
operation that have led the officer to suspect that some offences have been
committed somewhere. The discovery of the bank account is a sequel to the
discovery of the commission of offence. The police suspected that some of
the proceeds realised by the sale of official secrets have been passed on to
the petitioner by her husband. This itself is not sufficient to attract Section
102 Cr.P.C., as it cannot be said that the bank account has been traced or
discovered in the circumstance, which have made police aware of the
commission of offence.
Ratan Babulal Lath vs The State Of Karnataka on 6 September, 2021
19. Finally, learned counsel for the petitioner submitted the
judgment of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in Rattan Babulal ..vs.. State of
Karnataka reported in 2021 SCC OnLine 875 for the proposition that when
Section 18A of Prevention of Corruption Act gives power of attachment and
forfeiture of property, the attachment of bank account and freezing of
account under Section 102 Cr.P.C is unsustainable. Learned counsel for the
petitioner heavily relied on this judgment in support of his submission that
the seizure of account and locker and its freezing under Section 102 Cr.P.C.,
is not sustainable and against the law. The reading of this judgment shows
19/25
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
Crl.R.C.No.795 of 2021
that, it was submitted by the respondent therein that they are in the process
of filing an application under Section 18A of Prevention of Corruption Act,
1988. Taking that into account, it was held that it was not possible to
sustain the freezing of bank account under Section 102 Cr.P.C., as the
Prevention of Corruption Act is a Code by itself.
Section 120B in The Indian Penal Code, 1860 [Entire Act]
The Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973
Teesta Atul Setalvad vs The State Of Gujarat on 15 December, 2017
16. Dealing with the question centers around sweep,
purport and applicability of Section 102(1) of Cr.P.C, the Hon'ble Supreme
Court in Teesta Atul Setalvad ..vs.. State of Gujarat reported in (2018) 2
SCC 372 observed quoting from the judgment reported in (1997) 7 SCC
685 (State of Maharashtra ..vs.. Tapas D.Neogy) that, 'We are therefore
persuaded to take the view that the bank account of the accused or any of
his relations, is property, within the meaning of Section 102 of Cr.P.C and a
police officer in the course of investigation can seize or prohibit the
operation of the said account, if such assets have direct links with the
commission of offence for which the police officer is investigating into.