9911796707
|
Home
Forgot password New User/ Regiser ⇒ Register to get Live Demo
2017 (12) TMI 1865 - SC - Indian LawsLifting of seizure of the bank accounts - Appellants contend that to justify the freezing of the bank accounts the investigating authority must demonstrate that the monies held in these accounts are connected with the commission of the offence - HELD THAT - The sweep and applicability of Section 102 of the Code is no more res integra. That question has been directly considered and answered in the case of STATE OF MAHARASHTRA VERSUS TAPAS D. NEOGY 1999 (9) TMI 960 - SUPREME COURT . The Court examined the question whether the police officer investigating any offence can issue prohibitory orders in respect of bank accounts in exercise of power Under Section 102 of the Code. The High Court, in that case, after analysing the provisions of Section 102 of the Code had opined that bank account of the Accused or of any relation of the Accused cannot be held to be property within the meaning of Section 102 of the Code. Therefore, the Investigating Officer will have no power to seize bank accounts or to issue any prohibitory order prohibiting the operation of the bank account - After this decision, there is no room to countenance the challenge to the action of seizure of bank account of any person which may be found under circumstances creating suspicion of the commission of any offence. In the present case, FIR has been registered at least against three private Appellants, naming them as Accused. CJP Trust has not been named as an Accused in the FIR. But the investigation thus far, according to the Respondents, reveals that Teesta Atul Setalvad and Javed Anand are actively associated with the said Trusts and have carried out transactions which may be found under circumstances suspicious of the commission of the alleged offence - For the present, the Investigating Officer is of the view that there are certain circumstances emerging from the transactions done from these bank accounts which create suspicion of the commission of an offence. It is on that belief he has exercised his discretion to issue directions to seize the bank accounts pertaining to CJP Trust. In the case of M.T. Enrica Lexie 2012 (5) TMI 696 - SUPREME COURT , the Court noted in paragraph 7 that agencies had completed their respective investigations and vessel was seized in exercise of power Under Section 102 of the Code. In Para 16, the Court noted the concession given by the counsel for the Government that the vessel was not the object of the crime or the circumstances which came up in the course of investigation that create suspicion of the commission of any offence. It is noticed that the prosecution has alleged that the two Trusts are run by the private Appellants and other Accused. They were actively involved in collecting huge funds as donation in the name of providing legal assistance to the 2002 Gujarat Riot Victims. Such donations received by the two Trusts had never reached the victims, the members of the Gulberg Society in respect of which grievance has been made in the subject FIR - It is alleged by the Respondents that the Appellants deliberately and intentionally did not disclose that they have already opened new accounts and transferred huge sums of money after knowing that stated bank accounts of the Appellants were seized on 21.01.2014 by the investigating agency. The details of the two newly opened accounts were not forthcoming. Further, in the proceedings filed before different Courts, incorrect plea has been taken by the Appellants, suggestive of the fact that their accounts were not compliant and duly scrutinized by the Competent Authority. Once the investigation is complete and police report is submitted to the concerned Court, it would be open to the Appellants to apply for de-freezing of the bank accounts and persuade the concerned Court that the said bank accounts are no more necessary for the purpose of investigation, as provided in Sub-section (3) of Section 102 of the Code - such a course would meet the ends of justice. Appeal dismissed.
Issues Involved:
1. Applicability of Section 102 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973. 2. Legality of freezing bank accounts without prior notice. 3. Justification for continued freezing of bank accounts. 4. Compliance with procedural requirements under Section 102. 5. Allegations of misuse of funds and discrepancies in accounts. Issue-wise Detailed Analysis: 1. Applicability of Section 102 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973: The central question in these appeals revolves around the scope and applicability of Section 102 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973. Section 102 empowers any police officer to seize property suspected to be involved in the commission of an offense. The court reaffirmed that bank accounts could be considered "property" under Section 102, as established in *State of Maharashtra v. Tapas D. Neogy* (1999) 7 SCC 685. The court noted that the police officer could seize or prohibit the operation of bank accounts if such assets have direct links with the commission of the offense under investigation. 2. Legality of Freezing Bank Accounts Without Prior Notice: The appellants argued that the freezing of their bank accounts without prior notice was illegal. However, the court rejected this contention, citing the Full Bench decision of the Bombay High Court in *Vinoskumar Ramachandran Valluvar v. The State of Maharashtra* (2011) Cri.L.J. 2522 (Bom.), which held that Section 102 does not require prior notice to the account holder. The court emphasized that the intention of the investigating agency should not be revealed to the suspect at the crucial stage of investigation to prevent manipulation or destruction of evidence. 3. Justification for Continued Freezing of Bank Accounts: The appellants contended that the continued freezing of their bank accounts was unjustified, especially since no donor had complained about the misuse of funds. The court, however, noted that the investigation had revealed substantial discrepancies in the accounts and suspicious transactions. The court emphasized that the purpose of Section 102 is to find out the truth after noticing material raising doubt about the commission of an offense. The court held that the investigating agency had enough material to justify the freezing of the accounts and that de-freezing them could paralyze the investigation. 4. Compliance with Procedural Requirements Under Section 102: The court examined whether the procedural requirements under Section 102 were followed. It was noted that the investigating officer had given intimation to the concerned Magistrate about the seizure of the bank accounts as required under Section 102(3). The court found that the procedural requirements were complied with and that there was no mandate for giving prior notice to the account holders before freezing their accounts. 5. Allegations of Misuse of Funds and Discrepancies in Accounts: The investigation revealed that the appellants had collected substantial donations purportedly for providing legal assistance to the 2002 Gujarat Riot victims. However, these funds were allegedly misappropriated for personal use. The court noted discrepancies in the audited accounts and bank statements, which the appellants failed to credibly explain. The court observed that the appellants' conduct of non-cooperation during the investigation and providing incorrect information strengthened the suspicion of the commission of an offense. Conclusion: The court dismissed the appeals, holding that the investigating officer had the authority to freeze the bank accounts under Section 102 of the Code, given the suspicious circumstances and discrepancies in the accounts. The court clarified that the appellants could apply for de-freezing the accounts upon completion of the investigation if the investigating officer finds that the accounts are not tainted with the crime. The court emphasized that the investigation should be allowed to proceed without interference to ensure justice.
|
