1990 (9) TMI 353 - HC - Indian Laws

Summary

Issues involved: Interpretation of powers of Investigating Agency u/s 102 Cr.P.C. and ownership of funds invested in Banks and financial institutions.

Ownership of funds: The case involved allegations against an individual for committing offenses under sections 467, 468, 471, and 420 of the Indian Penal Code. The Investigating Agency seized incriminating documents indicating that funds invested in financial institutions and Banks belonged to the accused, obtained through forging credit advices. The petitioners claimed that the amounts invested and drafts seized belonged to them, not the accused, and sought withdrawal of prohibitory orders preventing them from accessing their accounts.

Powers of Investigating Agency u/s 102 Cr.P.C.: The petitioners argued that the Investigating Agency had no authority to issue prohibitory orders on Banks and financial institutions, hindering them from operating their accounts. However, the Court held that the Investigating Agency was empowered to issue such orders u/s 102 Cr.P.C. based on legal precedents, including a decision by Padmini Jesudurai, J., which established that money in Bank accounts could be seized by prohibiting the account holder from accessing it. A subsequent Division Bench upheld this view, leading to the dismissal of the petition seeking withdrawal of the prohibitory order and release of the seized demand drafts.

In conclusion, the Court determined that the ownership of the funds and the legality of the prohibitory orders would be decided during the trial based on evidence presented, and upheld the Investigating Agency's power to issue such orders u/s 102 Cr.P.C. based on established legal interpretations.