9911796707
TMI Blog2018 (8) TMI 1612X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... urt had rejected the contention that such orders for freezing the bank accounts could be issued by the DRI under Section 102 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973. This Court is unable to sustain the impugned communication as the same is without the authority of law - Petition allowed. - W.P.(C) 7367/2016 - - - Dated:- 29-8-2018 - MR VIBHU BAKHRU J. Advocates who appeared in this case: For the Petitioner: Dr G. K. Sarkar, Mrs. Malabika Sarkar, Mr. Prashant Srivastava and Mr. Deepak Mahajan, Advocates. For the Respondents: Mr. Amit Mahajan, CGSC for UOI. Mr. O.P. Gaggar and Mr. Gautam Krishna Deka, Advocates for R-2. Mr. Satish Aggarwal, Advocate for R-3/DRI. JUDGMENT VIBHU BAKHRU, J 1. The petitioner has filed the present petition being aggrieved by the action of respondent no.3 (hereafter DRI ) freezing her current account no. 307301010294199 maintained with respondent no.2 (Union Bank of India s Branch located at Fatehpuri, Khari Baoli, Delhi hereafter UBI ). By the letter dated 19.03.2014 (hereafter the impugned communication ), the DRI had called upon UBI to not to permit any debit/withdrawal from the petitioner s account till further c ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... emitted funds into the accounts of various other entities, which were dealing in diamonds and were booked for sending foreign exchanges on the basis of forged bills of entry to several entities outside India. These entities had in turn remitted amounts to the five exporters being investigated by the DRI. 6. It is in the aforesaid context that the DRI had issued the impugned communication for freezing the petitioner s bank account maintained with UBI. 7. Mr. Aggrawal, learned counsel, who appeared for the DRI was unable to point out any provision of law in exercise of which the DRI sent the impugned communication. He, however, contended that the DRI was investigating the case of fraudulent exports and, therefore, a blanket order permitting the petitioner to operate the account ought not to be granted. He submitted that in the facts of the present case, the petitioner could be permitted to operate the bank account subject to providing adequate security. He relied upon the decision of the Supreme Court in Commissioner of Customs v. Euroasia Global: (2009) 6 SCC 58 in support of his contention that the funds lying in the bank account of the petitioner should be permitted to b ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... Customs Act expressly provides for seizure of goods, documents and things where a proper officer has the reason to believe that such goods are liable for confiscation. Section 105 and Section 110 of the Customs Act are set out below:- 105. Power to Search Premises.- (1) If the Assistant Commissioner of Customs, or in any area adjoining the land frontier or the coast of India an officer of customs specially empowered by name in this behalf by the Board, has reason to believe that any goods liable to confiscation, or any documents or things which in his opinion will be useful for or relevant to any proceeding under this Act, are secreted in any place, he may authorise any officer of customs to search or may himself search for such goods, documents or things. (2) The provisions of the 145 Code of Criminal Procedure, 1898 (5 of 1898), relating to searches shall, so far as may be, apply to searches under this section subject to the modification that sub-section (5) of section 165 of the said Code shall have effect as if the word Magistrate , wherever it occurs, the words Commissioner of Customs were substituted. 110. Seizure of Goods, Documents and Things.- ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... or things which, in his opinion, will be useful for, or relevant to, any proceeding under this Act. (4) The person from whose custody any documents are seized under sub-section (3) shall be entitled to make copies thereof or take extract therefrom in the presence of a officer of customs. 13. Plainly, the impugned communication has not been issued in exercise of any of the aforesaid provisions. In S.B. International v. The Assistant Director, Directorate of Revenue Intelligence and Ors. : W.P. (C) 237/2018, decided on 05.02.2018, this Court had rejected the contention that such orders for freezing the bank accounts could be issued by the DRI under Section 102 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973. 14. In the aforesaid view, this Court is unable to sustain the impugned communication as the same is without the authority of law. 15. The reliance placed by Mr. Aggarwal on the decision of the Supreme Court in Commissioner of Customs v. Euroasia Global (supra) is misplaced. In the said case, it was alleged that one Sh. Sangit Aggarwal was indulging in fraudulent imports of PVC Cloth by misdeclaration of its value. His offices and residential premises were searche ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
