Pradipta Ray, J.:— The writ petitioner, a private limited Company through its Managing Director has filed this writ peti-tion challenging the seizure of its properties mentioned in the seizure list and fora writ of mandamus commanding the opposite parties to release the properties seized including the Company's Books of Account and to allow the Company to operate its Bank account,
2. It appears that in connection with Bhubaneswar vigilance P.S Case No. 28/99 under section 13(1)(c) read with section 13(2) of the Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988 a proceeding has been initiated against one Sri Santosh Kumar Mishra, I.A.S, In connection with investigation of the said vigilance case various properties of the petitioner-company have been seized and its Bank accounts have been frozen on the allegation that the real owner of the company is the accused in the vigilance case and the Directors and the share-holders of the company are close relations of Shri Misra who are nothing but name-lenders. The petitioner-company has denied any connec-tion with Sri Santosh Kumar Misra, I.A.S and has claimed that all the share-holders have their independent source of income and all of them have invested their own money. Appearing on behalf of the writ petitioner, Mr. Bijan Ray, learned counsel, has submitted that section 102 of the Criminal Procedure Code does not authorise the police to seize or freeze any bank account of the accused, not to speak of any account belonging to a third party. Mr. Ray has referred to a Division Bench decision of this Court reported in 1995 (2) O.L.R 587 (Sri Uma Sankar Rath v. Director General-cum-Inspector General of Police, Vigilance) in support of his submission. In the said judgment the Division Bench relied upon a decision of Gauhati High Court to hold that prohibiting a bank with which the accused has an account and a locker, not to pay any amount out of the account of the accused to the accused and not so allow the accused to take away property from the locker is not seizure under section 102, Cr.P.C, as the seizure as contemplated under section 102, Cr. P.C is an act of taking possession of the property and as such no such order can be passed by a police officer.
3. Mr. Prusty, learned Government Advocate appearing on behalf of the opposite parties has drawn attention of this Court to a decision of Punjab & Haryana High Court in Dr. Guru Charan Singh v. State of Punjab reported in Vol. LXXX (1978) Punjab Law Reporter, page 514, in which it has been held that a bank account suspected to belong to an accused in an investigation under the Prevention of Corruption Act is a property capable of being seized under section 102, Cr. P.C.
4. Section 550 of the Criminal Procedure Code, 1898 was the provision of seizure corresponding to present section 102 of the Criminal Procedure Code, 1973. The power of seizure under section 550, Cr. P.C, 1898 was interpreted by this Court in Babulal Agarwalla v. Provinces of Orissa (A.I.R 1954 Orissa 225). In paragraph 16 of the said judgment it has been held that a police officer may seize any property under suspicious circumstances even in case of commission of non-cognizable offence. Kerala High Court in Krishnan Sukumaran,… v. Enforcement Officer, Cochin,…., Cochin (A.I.R 1968 Kerala 208) also held:—
“Section 550 of the Criminal Procedure Code also empowers a police officer to seize any property which may be alleged or suspected to have been stolen or which may be found under circumstances, which creates suspicion of the commission of any offence.”
5. The Delhi High Court also considered the scope of the power of the police officer to seize property under section 102 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 in P.K Parmar v. Union of India, reported in 1992 Crl. Law Journal 2499. In the said case Central Bureau of Investigation in exercise of power under section 102 of the Code directed various banks, financial institutions and Post Offices to freeze the several accounts of the petitioners therein. In the said decision it has been held that a police officer has the power to seize or freeze the bank accounts by exercising his power under section 102 of the Code and the circumstances under which the said power can be exercised has been explained. As Delhi High Court was satisfied that there were prima facie good reasons to freeze the accounts, it refused to interfere with the orders issued by the Central Bureau of Investigation.
6. Madras High Court in Bharat Overseas Bank v. Minu Publication, 1988 Madras L.W (Crl.) 106 and in Bharat Overseas Ltd. v. Mrs. Prema Ramlingam, 1991 Madras L.W (Crl.) 353 also held that a Bank account is a property within the meaning of section 102 of the Criminal Procedure Code and can be seized by the Police in exercise of the power of seizure under the said provision of section 102, Cr. P.C.
7. The terms ‘property’ has a wide connotation. It inclu-des both tangible and intangible things like an interest in any property moveable or immoveable. Seizure does not always mean taking of actual physical possession. An immoveable property like a piece of land or house cannot be always taken possession or handled physically. Notional possession is also a possession in law. A Bank account can only be seized by prohibiting withdrawal or transfer of any amount from the said account. The purpose behind seizure of any suspected property is to prevent any kind of transfer or alienation or removal of such property till completion of investigation.
8. Section 5(1) (c) of the Prevention of Corruption Act, 1947 lays down that if the accused or any.person on his behalf is in possession of any pecuniary resources or property disproportionate to his known source of income he commits the offence of criminal misconduct. Section 102(1), Cr. P.C authorises any police officer to seize any property which may be alleged or suspected to have been stolen or which may be found under circumstances which creates suspicion of the commission of an offence. The said section itself does not contain any restriction that only tangible properties capable of physical possession can be seized. As already pointed out, acquisition of disproportionate assets is an offence under the Prevention of Corruption Act. In course of investigation if the police suspects that an accused has kept his ill-gotten money in a bank account, either in his own name or in the name of another person, and the police is denied of any power or jurisdiction to seize or freeze the said account, it would amount to encouraging the accused to take way such ill-gotten money beyond the reach of prosecutors. Such narrow interpre-tation of section 102, Cr. P.C is likely to defeat the very purpose for which power of seizure has been conferred on the police.
9. In Umashankar Rath's case a Division Bench of this Court has followed the decision of the Gauhati High Court in Purbanchal Road Service, Gauhati v. The State reported in 1991 Crl. L.J 2798 and no separate reason has been given. Attention of the said Division Bench was also not drawn to the views of the other High Courts regarding the scope of the power under section 102, Cr. P.C.
10. In the mean time, Supreme Court has settled the law putting an end to the conflict of views of different High Courts. In State of Maharastra v. Tapas D. Neogy, reported in 1999 A.I.R.S.C.W 3389 Supreme Court expressly overruled the views of the Allahabad High Court (A.I.R 1960 All. 405), the Gauhati High Court (1991 Crl. L.J 2798) and Karnataka High Court (1994 Crl. L.J 645) and held
“We are, therefore, persuaded to take the view that the bank account of the accused or any of his rela-tion is ‘property’ within the meaning of section 102 of the Criminal Procedure Code and a police officer in course of investigation can seize or prohibit the operation of the said account if such assets have direct links with the commission of the offence for which the police officer is investigating into. The contrary view expressed by Karnataka, Gauhati and Allahabad High Courts, does not represent the correct law. xxxxxxxxx In the aforesaid premises, we have no hesitation to come to the conclusion that the High Court of Bombay committed error in holding that the police officer could not have seized the bank account or could not have issued any direction to the bank officer, prohibiting the account of the accused from being operated upon.”
11. Thus the decision in Umashankar Roth's case is no longer good law.
12. Accordingly, the present writ-petition has no merit and the same is dismissed.
C.R Pal, J.:— I agree.
13. Writ petition dismissed.
Comments