Search Results Page
Search Results
1 - 8 of 8 (0.36 seconds)
Mr. Guruprasath vs State
cites
The Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988
Rakesh P Sheth vs State Rep. By on 20 November, 2017
15. This Court is of the view that the contention of the learned Additional Public Prosecutor has some force to consider. The purpose of intimating the party as held by this Court in the case of Rakesh P. Sheth and Others Vs. The State reported in MANU/TN/2192/2016 that the account holder should know about the freezing of the account and an opportunity should be given to him to make alternative arrangement. Here, the petitioner being aware of the action taken by the Investigating Agency, has approached the Court and the matter was under adjudication and subsequently negatived. Hence, this Court does not find much force in the argument of the learned counsel for the petitioner on this ground. However, the fact remains, even after a lapse of 3 months, the prosecution is not able to arrive at a conclusion regarding the quantum of disproportionate asset which is in the frozen account of the petitioner, who is not an accused in the case.
Section 18 in The Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988 [Entire Act]
State Of Maharashtra vs Tapas D. Neogy on 16 September, 1999
13. The power of the police under Section 102 Cr.P.C to freeze a bank account is no more res integra and the same has been settled beyond cavil by the judgment of the Supreme Court in State of Maharashtra Vs. Tapas D. Neogi [MANU/SC/0582/1999:(1999) 7 SCC 685]. But, the question that falls for consideration in the case at hand is whether the account holder should have to be informed by the police of the freezing of his account.
Sunderbhai Ambalal Desai vs State Of Gujarat on 18 November, 2002
19. Insofar as return of currency seized i.e., Rs.16,25,000/- which has been seized during the course of the search of the premises of the accused, this Court is not inclined to pass any order, since neither the source nor the ownership of the money been established by the petitioner or the accused. If it is suspected to be the proceeds of the alleged crime, same cannot be returned. However, it is open to the party concerned to approach the Trial Court to seek investment of the said money in any Nationalized Bank instead of keeping it ideal. If such petition is filed, the trial Court can entertain the same and invest the money as per the guidelines of the Supreme Court rendered in the case of Sunderbhai Ambalal Desai Vs. State of Gujarat reported in (2002) 10 SCC 283.
The Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973
Uma Maheswari vs State Rep By on 30 March, 2016
In support of the submission, the learned counsel for the revision petitioner relied upon the case of Uma Maheswari Vs. State reported in 2013 SCC Online Mad 3829 wherein, this Court has held as under:
1