1993 (9) TMI 366 - HC - Indian Laws

Summary

Issues Involved:
1. Return of seized building materials.
2. Imposition of Condition No. 4.
3. Prohibitory orders on bank accounts.
4. Return of seized demand drafts.

Detailed Analysis:

1. Return of Seized Building Materials:
The petitioners sought the return of steel fabricated, finished, and semi-finished articles seized by the police. The Principal Sessions Judge allowed this request, subject to certain conditions. The petitioners argued that the materials were ready for delivery to the Karnataka Housing Board (KHB) but were seized by the police, preventing delivery. The State opposed, citing ongoing investigations and the need for valuation and quantity checking of the seized articles. The court upheld the return of the materials but imposed conditions to ensure proper reporting and accountability.

2. Imposition of Condition No. 4:
Condition No. 4 required the petitioners and KHB to report to the police the manner, method, and quantity of materials used in the construction of houses under the Ashraya Scheme. The petitioners contended that once the materials were delivered to the Board, they would have no control or knowledge to make such a report. Both the State Public Prosecutor and the counsel for respondent No. 3 agreed to modify this condition. The court modified Condition No. 4, confining the reporting requirement to the Board only, relieving the petitioners from this obligation.

3. Prohibitory Orders on Bank Accounts:
The petitioners challenged the prohibitory orders issued by the police, preventing them from operating their bank accounts. They argued that under Section 102 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, a police officer cannot direct a banker to prohibit an accused from operating their bank account. The court cited decisions from the Gauhati High Court and Allahabad High Court, which held that the term "seize" under Section 102 means actual taking possession and does not include issuing prohibitory orders. The court concluded that police officers have no power to issue such prohibitory orders and directed their withdrawal.

4. Return of Seized Demand Drafts:
The petitioners requested the return of demand drafts seized by the police, which they argued were necessary to fulfill their contractual obligations with the KHB. The State opposed this, citing the serious nature of the offenses and the ongoing investigation. The court noted that the Principal Sessions Judge had exercised discretion in refusing to return the demand drafts at that stage, considering the seriousness of the allegations and the potential impact on the investigation. The court decided not to interfere with this discretionary order.

Conclusion:
1. The revision petition was allowed in part.
2. Condition No. 4 was modified to require only the KHB to report to the police.
3. Prohibitory orders on the petitioners' bank accounts were to be withdrawn.
4. The order regarding the refusal to return the demand drafts remained undisturbed.

Order:
The court's final order included the modification of Condition No. 4, the withdrawal of prohibitory orders on bank accounts, and the maintenance of the Principal Sessions Judge's decision regarding the demand drafts.