9911796707
|
Home
Issues Involved:
1. Whether a Police Officer can issue a prohibitory order in respect of the bank account of the accused u/s 102 of the Criminal Procedure Code. 2. Whether the bank account of an accused or any relation of the accused can be considered 'property' within the meaning of Section 102 of the Cr.P.C. Summary: Issue 1: Prohibitory Order by Police Officer u/s 102 Cr.P.C. This appeal challenges the Bombay High Court's judgment which held that a Police Officer investigating an offence cannot issue a prohibitory order on the bank account of the accused u/s 102 of the Criminal Procedure Code. The High Court concluded that bank accounts do not constitute 'property' under Section 102 Cr.P.C., and thus, the Investigating Officer lacks the authority to seize or prohibit the operation of such accounts. This decision was based on previous judgments, including the Division Bench decision in Lloyds Bank's case. Issue 2: Bank Account as 'Property' u/s 102 Cr.P.C. The Supreme Court analyzed the provisions of Section 102 Cr.P.C., which allows a Police Officer to seize any property suspected to be involved in the commission of an offence. The term 'property' and 'any offence' were interpreted broadly to include bank accounts if they are suspected to be linked to the commission of an offence. The Court noted divergent views from various High Courts on whether bank accounts fall under the definition of 'property' in Section 102 Cr.P.C. Divergent Views from High Courts: - Delhi High Court (Ms. Swaran Sabharwal vs. Commissioner of Police): Held that bank accounts may not be seized under Section 102 Cr.P.C. unless the discovery of the account itself creates suspicion of an offence. - Gauhati High Court (M/s. Purbanchal Road Service vs. The State): Concluded that 'seize' means actual possession, thus prohibitory orders on bank accounts are not covered under Section 102 Cr.P.C. - Karnataka High Court (M/s Malnad Construction Co. vs. State of Karnataka): Agreed with Gauhati High Court, stating that police cannot issue prohibitory orders on bank accounts. - Delhi High Court (P.K. Parmar vs. Union of India): Allowed freezing of bank accounts if linked to fraudulent activities. - Madras High Court (Bharath Overseas Bank vs. Minu Publication): Held that bank accounts are 'property' and can be seized under Section 102 Cr.P.C. - Punjab & Haryana High Court (Dr. Gurcharan Singh vs. The State of Punjab): Agreed that bank accounts are 'property' and can be seized. Supreme Court's Conclusion: The Supreme Court held that bank accounts of the accused or their relations are 'property' within the meaning of Section 102 Cr.P.C. and can be seized or prohibited from operation if linked to the commission of an offence. The contrary views of Karnataka, Gauhati, and Allahabad High Courts were not accepted. The Court emphasized the need to interpret Section 102 Cr.P.C. in a manner that supports the objectives of anti-corruption laws and prevents the accused from withdrawing illicit funds during the investigation. However, in the present case, since the impugned order had already been given effect to and the accused had been operating the account, the Supreme Court did not interfere with the High Court's decision.
|
