9911796707
|
Home
Issues Involved:
The judgment involves a challenge to an order passed by the Special Judge Assam and letters issued by the Inspector (CBI) Gauhati in a Crime Case under Sections 120-B and 409 of the Indian Penal Code and Section 5(2) of the PC Act. Facts: The Inspector (CBI) Gauhati directed various bank managers not to allow the petitioner to withdraw money or property from their banks, stating that the assets had been seized under Section 102 of the Criminal Procedure Code during the investigation. The petitioner sought release of the assets, which was rejected by the Special Judge as premature. Legal Analysis: The petitioner argued that a police officer does not have the jurisdiction to prohibit a bank from allowing an accused to operate their account or locker. Section 102 of the Criminal Procedure Code allows for seizure of property suspected to be involved in an offense, with specific procedures for reporting and custody. Precedent and Interpretation: Referring to the case of Textile Traders Syndicate v. State of U.P., it was established that once money passes to a debtor, it becomes unidentifiable and cannot be seized by a police officer. The court agreed with this interpretation, stating that the act of seizure under Section 102 requires actual taking possession of the property. Judgment: The court quashed the orders of the Special Judge and the police officer, ruling that the actions taken were not in accordance with the law. However, in the case of lockers where suspicious articles are present, the police officer was granted permission to take possession within two weeks, during which the petitioner would be restricted from accessing the contents of the lockers.
|
