2015 (3) TMI 1400 - HC - Indian Laws

Freezing of petitioner's Bank Accounts - Cheating - defacto complainant - police has complied with the mandatory requirements under Section 102 CrPC or not - HELD THAT - A cursory look at sub Section (3) of Section 102 CrPC, no doubt, makes it clear that it is the duty of the police officer acting under subsection (1) shall forthwith the report the seizure to the magistrate having jurisdiction - The word shall used under Sub Section (3) of the Section 102 CrPC can be meant and interpreted to cast a mandatory duty on the police officer, to seize the property and to report to the Magistrate having jurisdiction. In the light of the decisions dealing with interpretation of statutes and Section, this Court is unable to accept the contention that non compliance of sub Section (3) of Section 102 CrPC, i.e., in not reporting the factum of the seizure to the learned Magistrate having jurisdiction, would entitle the accused to seek for defreezing of the bank accounts, when the investigation is in progress and with reference to the facts on hand, statements of bank accounts have to be collected from the HDFC Bank. On the facts and circumstances of this case, instead of directing the petitioner/accused to seek for a direction against the employer to credit of subsistence allowance, which is now stated to be lying in the District Treasury, Thiruvannamalai, this Court, in exercise of powers under Section 482 of CrPC, deems it fit to suo motu implead the Director of the Agriculture Department, Ezhilagam, Chennai, as a party respondent to this revision case, only for the purpose of enabling him to credit the subsistence allowance to which the petitioner is entitled as a Government Servant. A direction is issued to the Manager, HDFC Bank, Thiruvannamalai Branch, to defreeze the salary account only to the limited extent of permitting the Director, Agriculture Department, Chennai, to deposit the subsistence allowances due and payable to the petitioner, within a period of two weeks from the date of receipt of a copy of this order - Criminal Revision Case is disposed of.

Summary

Issues Involved:
1. Legality of freezing the petitioner's bank accounts.
2. Compliance with Section 102 of CrPC by the police.
3. Impact of freezing on the petitioner's subsistence and salary.
4. Interpretation of statutory provisions and legislative intent.

Detailed Analysis:

1. Legality of Freezing the Petitioner's Bank Accounts:
The criminal revision case was directed against an order dated 18.02.2015, where the petitioner sought to defreeze his bank accounts. The petitioner's accounts were frozen during the investigation of a criminal case registered under Sections 406 and 420 read with 34 IPC. The petitioner contended that the accounts were frozen without his knowledge and sought relief under Section 451 CrPC. The police objected, stating that the petitioner had sold property with encumbrance and deposited the sale proceeds in these accounts, necessitating the freeze to prevent withdrawal of the alleged cheated money.

2. Compliance with Section 102 of CrPC by the Police:
The petitioner argued that the police violated Section 102 of CrPC by freezing his accounts without notifying him. Section 102(3) mandates that every seizure of property by the police must be reported to the Magistrate forthwith. The court noted that compliance with this section is mandatory, and failure to report the seizure to the Magistrate would typically warrant defreezing. However, in this case, the court found that the ongoing investigation justified the freeze, as the police needed to collect further evidence and statements from the bank.

3. Impact of Freezing on the Petitioner's Subsistence and Salary:
The petitioner, a government servant, highlighted that his salary was not being credited due to the freeze, affecting his ability to pay for his son's education and other expenses. The court acknowledged the petitioner's right to subsistence allowance, which should not be affected by the freeze related to the criminal investigation. Consequently, the court directed the HDFC Bank to defreeze the salary account to the extent necessary for crediting the subsistence allowance and allowed the petitioner to apply for withdrawal of his salary/subsistence allowance from the account.

4. Interpretation of Statutory Provisions and Legislative Intent:
The judgment extensively discussed principles of statutory interpretation, emphasizing that the intent of the legislature must be derived from the language used in the statute. The court cited numerous precedents to underline that when the language of a statute is clear and unambiguous, it must be given its plain meaning. The court also noted that procedural laws should be construed to render justice and avoid injustice. In this context, the court found no manifest illegality in the lower court's order to maintain the freeze on the petitioner's accounts, as it aligned with the legislative intent of preventing withdrawal of potentially illicit funds during an ongoing investigation.

Conclusion:
The court upheld the lower court's decision to keep the petitioner's bank accounts frozen, emphasizing compliance with Section 102 of CrPC and the necessity of the freeze for the ongoing investigation. However, it provided relief by directing the defreezing of the salary account to ensure the petitioner's subsistence allowance was credited, balancing the need for investigation with the petitioner's right to subsistence.