1. The petitioner is one of the accused in Crime Nos. 7 and 8 of 2007 on the file of the first respondent Police. On the Complaint of one Muthu Kumar the case in Crime No. 7 of 2007 has been registered for offences under Sections 406 and 506(ii) of the Indian penal Code.
2. During the course of investigation of both the cases, the first respondent by a communication dated 5.5.2007 to the second respondent herein and by another communication dated 5.5.2007 to the third respondent herein, has freezed the Bank Accounts of the petitioner. Challenging the same, the petitioner has come forward with this Criminal Original Petition.
3. Heard the learned counsel for the petitioner and the learned Government Advocate (Criminal Side) for the first respondent and there is no representation for the respondents 2 and 3.
4. The main contention of the learned counsel for the petitioner is that as required under Section 102 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, it is mandatory for the first respondent to give immediate report to the learned Judicial Magistrate having jurisdiction and also to give notice to the petitioner. Since the same has not been done in this case, according to the learned counsel, the proceedings of the first respondent, freezing the Bank Accounts of the petitioner are liable to be quashed.
5. The learned counsel relies on a judgment of this Court in R. Chandrasekar v. Inspector of Police, Salem and another, 2002 (5) CTC 598: 2003 Cri.L.J 294, and another judgment of this Court in B. Ranganathan v. State and others, 2003 Cri.L.J 2779.
6. In the former judgment, a learned Judge of this Court in paragraph 11 has held as follows:
“The respondents/Police has also not followed the mandatory requirements of Section 102 of the Code of Criminal Procedure. The Police Officer shall forthwith report the same to the Magistrate and also give notice to the petitioner and allow him to operate the Bank Account subject to executing a bond undertaking to produce the amount in Court, as and when required as contemplated in Clause 3 of Section 102, but not given any such notice. Even the copy of prohibitory order was not served to the petitioner.”
7. In the latter judgment, a learned Judge in paragraph 21 has held as follows:
“Yet another legal aspect pointed out on the part of the petitioner by his counsel is the procedure that is to be adopted on seizure of Bank Account. In case of seizure of a Bank Account, the Police Officer should do two things; he should inform the concerned Magistrate forthwith regarding the prohibitory order. He should also give notice of the seizure to the accused and allow him/her to operate the Bank Account subject to his/her executing abond undertaking to produce the amounts in Court as and when required or to hold them subject to such orders as the Court may make regarding the disposal of the same. An order under Section 102, without doing so is liable to be set aside, as held in Ms. Swaran Sabharwal v. Commissioner Of Police. of Police, 1988 Cri.L.J 241 (Delhi). This procedure that is to be followed and felt mandatory has also not been followed by the first respondent.”
8. The learned Government Advocate (Criminal Side) would fairly concede that no such report was given to the learned Magistrate as required under Section 102 of the Coe of Criminal Procedure and no notice was also issued to the petitioner. Since it has been well settled by this Court in the above two judgments that in case where such mandatory provision has not been followed, then the entire proceeding is liable to be quashed.
9. In view of the above position, this Criminal Original Petition is allowed and the proceedings of the first respondent dated 5.5.2007 freezing the Bank Accounts of the petitioner in the second and third respondents-Banks are hereby quashed. Since this order quashing the proceedings is passed on a technical ground, I make it clear that if need be in future, the first respondent may initiate fresh proceedings after following the mandatory provisions as indicated above.