Judgment:
1 R Reserved on :
31. 07.2024 Pronounced on :
06. 08.2024 IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU DATED THIS THE06H DAY OF AUGUST, 2024 BEFORE THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE M. NAGAPRASANNA WRIT PETITION No.14179 OF2024(GM - RES) BETWEEN: MR.ANSARI SABLU HAIDARALI AGED ABOUT39YEARS S/O ANSARI HAIDARALLI B-201, ARMAN APARTMENT OLD R.T.O PLACE, NAVAPARA BHAVNAGAR GUJARAT – 364 001. ... PETITIONER (BY SRI SHARAN L.JAIN, ADVOCATE) AND: STATE OF KARNATAKA BY WEST CEN CRIME P.S., BENGALURU REPRESENTED BY STATE PUBLIC PROSECUTOR HIGH COURT BUILDING BENGALURU – 560 001. ... RESPONDENT (BY SRI B.N.JAGADEESH, ADDL.SPP) 2 THIS WRIT PETITION IS FILED UNDER ARTICLES226AND227OF THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA READ WITH SECTION482OF CR.P.C., PRAYING TO DIRECTING THE RESPONDENTS TO DEFREEZE THE ENTIRE BANK ACCOUNT OF THE PETITIONER HELD AT KARNATAKA BANK, WITH ACCOUNT NUMBER941700600001101 WITH IFSC CODE KARB0000941 IN THE NAME OF M/S SAIF OIL TRADERS. THIS WRIT PETITION HAVING BEEN HEARD AND RESERVED FOR
ORDERS ON3107.2024, COMING ON FOR PRONOUNCEMENT THIS DAY, THE COURT MADE THE FOLLOWING:- CORAM: THE HON'BLE MR JUSTICE M.NAGAPRASANNA CAV
ORDERThe petitioner is before this Court seeking a direction to the respondent to de-freeze his bank account held at Karnataka Bank in the name and style of Saif Oil Traders. As an interim prayer, he seeks stay of further proceedings in Crime No.124 of 2024 registered for offences punishable under Section 420 of the IPC and Sections 66C and 66D of the Information Technology Act, 2000 pending before the 45th Additional Chief Metropolitan Magistrate, Bengaluru. 3
2. Facts, in brief, germane are as follows:- The petitioner claims to be a businessman engaged in oil trading. A crime comes to be registered in Crime No.124 of 2024 for offences punishable as afore-quoted against unknown persons. The complainant is one D.S. Rupa, a resident of Bengaluru City. It is the case of the complainant that she has been lured into transfer of money to the tune of `2,28,72,343/- through whatsapp to various accounts and she has been defrauded by those account holders who have received the amount. Pursuant to registration of the crime, which is an online fraud, a debit freeze order is issued by the Investigating Officer to all the accounts which had received the amount from the complainant, either direct or indirect. One such account is that of the petitioner held in Karnataka Bank. On the account being frozen, the petitioner files an application before the learned Magistrate under Sections 451 and 457 of the Cr.P.C., seeking de-freezement of the account. When the said application did not find any favour at the hand of the learned Magistrate, the petitioner is before this Court seeking de-freezement of the account. 4
3. Heard Sri Sharan L. Jain, learned counsel appearing for the petitioner and Sri B. N. Jagadeesh, learned Additional State Public prosecutor appearing for the respondent/State.
4. The learned counsel appearing for the petitioner would vehemently contend that debit freeze order issued by the Investigating Officer has led to freezement of the account of the petitioner alleging that it is a crypto currency. It is the case of the petitioner that he being an innocent oil trader has nothing to do with the business of crypto currency. Therefore, the account that is frozen should be immediately de-frozen. He would also submit that as necessary in law, no intimation is sent to the Magistrate about the freezement of the account immediately after direction of such debit freeze. He would submit that, this is in violation of law i.e., Section 102 of the Cr.P.C., and, therefore, the account should be directed to be de-frozen immediately. He would seek to place reliance upon several judgments rendered by the Apex Court, this Court and several other High Courts to buttress his submission that freezing order of the Investigating Officer, if not communicated to the learned Magistrate, would vitiate the very order of freezing. 5
5. Per contra, the learned Additional State Public Prosecutor would refute the submissions to contend that the account of the petitioner is frozen on specific suspicion of part of crypto currency fraud or online fraud. The petitioner has admittedly received `40,00,000/- into his account from the complainant directly. He is the direct beneficiary of the receipt of amount like all others. It is not that petitioner’s account only is frozen, but all the accounts to which money has been transferred by the complainant have been frozen. Insofar as the submission with regard to compliance with Section 102 of the Cr.P.C. is concerned, he would contend that debit freeze of the amount is marked as PF before the learned Magistrate. If it is marked as PF, it would undoubtedly be returned. Even otherwise, he would submit that non-reporting would definitely entail proceedings of the Investigating Officer, but it would not vitiate the act of freezement of the account of the petitioner. He would seek dismissal of the petition.
6. I have given my anxious consideration to the submissions made by the respective learned counsel and have perused the material on record. 6
7. The afore-narrated facts are not in dispute. The business of the petitioner is in terms of what he has averred in the petition. The complainant is one D.S.Rupa. It is the allegation of the complainant that she has transferred several amounts into the accounts of several persons through whatsapp on the account numbers being indicated to her for the business of crypto currency. One such account is that of the petitioner. After coming to know that she has been completely defrauded, she registers a complaint. Since the entire issue now sprung from the complaint, I deem it appropriate to notice the complaint. It reads as follows: “TO POLICE INSPECTOR CEN POLICE STATION WEST DIVISION, BASAVESHWARA NAGAR BENGALURU-560079 FROM D.S.RUPA W/o PONNURI SRINIVAS AGE51GENDER FEMALE ADDRESS SATUIK1602. OLETY LANDMARK APARTMENTS9/1, KURUBARAHALLI MAIN ROAD B- 560 086 BENGALURU-560 086 QUALIFICATION B.E. RELIGION, HINDU CAST, VYASYA'S MARRIED YES OCCUPATION: ASSOCIATE DIRECTOR: LOCALSTATION LIMITS BASANVESHWARANAGAR E MAIL ID [email protected] MO.No.9148076352 Sociel Media Page Link https://xtremeux.com, https://globalindia-024. Pages.dew/#/ App/Website Link Telegram https://t.me/Bhavati 19866 https://t.me/Lisa5566889. 7 RESPECTED SIR, 19-02-2024 SUBJECT: Cryto currency fraud of Rs. 2,28,72,343.00 TOTAL LOST AMOUNT:2,28,72,343.00 BRIEF FACT... On 04 Jan 2024, I was asked to invest 2000 Rs and profit of 800 Rs was provided in 10 mins. Later I invested 9000Rs. A telegram group named “9000-VIP” was formed with 3 members and a Tearea Named Bhavati was added. He asked 3 of us to invest various amounts and promised good profits. I did a mistake while investing and he Charged me 5 lakhs investment for that. After all these investments. 1 Crore with profit was promised. Then 30% tax of 32 lakhs was asked. I paid When paying I did Small mistake of paying 5 Rs. Extra, he fined me and payments of various amounts for VIP Upgrade and maintenance was asked and each time the release of funds was promised. The final amount of around 3 crores was promised. Now he is asking 30% income tax which is 90 lakhs. We thought he will be asking money and not returning our money and decided to logde Cyber crime report. We called 1930 and lodged the complaint. 3 Acknowledgements are provided as payments. were tone done from mine, my husband and daughter accounts.
1. 1930 Acknowledgment No.31602240012153 Name: D.S.RUPA Mobile:
91480. 6352 2. 1930 Acknowledgment No.31602240012447 Name: PONNURI SRINIVAS Mobile:
91486. 1228 3. 1930 Acknowledgment No:
31602. 40012446 Name: NIMISHA PONNURI8Mobile:
73488. 6412 Hard Copies of List of transactions. Bank receipts . Telegram chat, Bank statements with transactions highlighted are provided with this letter Fraudstar First Contact Number in Whatsapp +91 73876 76 948 I was asked to transfer in 48 transactions to different bank accounts around 35-40 accounts Total amount of 2,28,72.343.00 is lost sir. Rupa D S Accounts :
1. 73,02,343 (Husband Company) Tuscan Interiors :
13. 70,000 (Daughter) NIMISHA PONNURI:
42. 00,000 I request you to help us get back huge amount lost. Please.” The complainant narrates that she has lost more than `2/- crores of amount to several accounts. Based upon the said complaint, a crime is registered against unknown persons, holding it to be offence as afore-quoted and an online fraud of every account that the complainant has transferred the amounts into. One such account is that of the petitioner. Therefore, a debit freeze communication is made to the place where the account of the 9 petitioner is i.e., Karnataka Bank, Gujarat. The communication issued by the jurisdictional Police, Bengaluru reads as follows: “To,
1) THE NODAL OFFICER2 THE MANAGER KARNATAKA BANK NO11, VRAJ RENU, WAGHAWADI ROAD BHAVNAGAR36400 GUJARAT Sub: Debit freeze the account and provide the KYC details Ref: CR NO.124/2024 U/S66C) (D) IT ACT2000& 420 IPC * * * * * * With reference to the above subject, a fraud case has been registered in CEN Police Station, west division, Bengaluru City and the same is investigation, In this regard below mentioned account/s is/are suspected to be under commission of above offence. Hence kindly ‘Debit freeze' the account/s (as per 102 Cr.P.C) and provide following details(as per 91 Cr.P.C).
1. Certified copies of account opening form & KYC documents.
2. Statement of Account from date:
01. 01-2024 to till date.
3. Provide the mobile No used for Net Banking of this account.
4. Effective available balance/lien marked by other agency.
5. Net Banking Ip Logs details. 10 SI. No Recipient Account IFSC CODE Details 1 9417000600001101 KARB0000941 Note: After Debit freeze intimate the account holder to contact investigation officer/45TH ACMM Court Bangalore. Thanking you,” The moment the petitioner became disabled to operate the account, he files an application before the concerned Court under Sections 451 and 457 of the Cr.P.C., contending that he is in the business of oil trading and he is not aware of the money that has fallen into his account from the complainant. He always thought that he has multiple transactions with one Shred Bhai and money must have come in from his account and, therefore did not bother to check it. The application is opposed by the complainant and the prosecution both. The prosecution submits the objections and seeks rejection by the following communication: “«µÀAiÀÄ:- ªÉÆ.¸ÀA1242024 PÀ®A66¹) 66(r) ªÀiÁ»w vÀAvÀæeÁÕ£À PÁAiÉÄÝ 2000 ºÁUÀÆ 420 ಐ(cid:2)(cid:3) ರ(cid:5)(cid:6) (cid:7)ಾ(cid:9)ಥ(cid:11)ಕ ಆ(cid:14)ೋ(cid:2)(cid:18)ಾದ SAIF OIL TRADERS KARNATAKA BANK ACCOUNT No.9417000600001101 IFSC CODE:KARB0000941 ಅನು(cid:23) (cid:24)(cid:25)(cid:9)ೕ(cid:26) (cid:27)ಾಡ(cid:29)ರುವಂ ೆ !ೋ" ಮನ$. 11 ಉ&ೆ(cid:6)ೕಖ:- (cid:3).ಇ.ಎ* +(cid:5)ೕ, -ಾ.ೆ, ಪ01ಮ $2ಾಗ, 4ೆಂಗಳ6ರು ನಗರ. ªÉÆ.¸ÀA1242024 PÀ®A66¹) 66(r) ªÀiÁ»w vÀAvÀæeÁÕ£À PÁAiÉÄÝ 2000 ºÁUÀÆ 420 ಐ(cid:2)(cid:3). * * * * * * 7ೕಲ9ಂಡ $ಷಯ ಮತು= ಉ&ೆ(cid:6)ೕಖನ!ೆ9 ಸಂಬಂ@(cid:3)ದಂ ೆ. ಘನ BಾC(cid:18)ಾಲಯದ(cid:5)(cid:6) DEೇ@(cid:3)!ೊಳFGವHIೇBೆಂದ(cid:14)ೆ ಈ ಪ(cid:9)ಕರಣದ(cid:5)(cid:6) ದೂರುIಾರ"Lೆ (cid:29)Bಾಂಕ:04-01-2024 ರಂದು EಾMಾNO ನಂಬP (7387676948) Dಂದ (cid:18)ಾ(cid:14)ೋ ಅಪ"QR (cid:7)ಾS Mೈಂ UಾV ಬLೆW ಸಂIೇಶ ಕಳFY(cid:3)ದುZ ದೂರುIಾರರು ಸಂಬಂಧಪಟ].ವರನು(cid:23) ಸಂಪ^_(cid:3)ದುZ °APï (https://Xtremeux.com https://globalindia-a24 pages dew/#/)ಮೂಲಕ Lೊಗ‘ ನ(cid:5)(cid:6) aೋMೆ‘ ಮತು= (cid:14)ೆbೊ].ೕ(cid:14)ೆಂS ಗcLೆ "$ವdC aಾಗೂ (cid:14)ೇeಂf Dೕಡುವ !ೆಲಸ Dೕ(cid:24)ರು ಾ=(cid:14)ೆ. ನಂತರ ದೂರುIಾರರು 1Bೇ Mಾ,9 ಗೂಗ‘ "$ವdC (cid:27)ಾ(cid:24)Iಾಗ ಅಪ"Qತ ವC^=ಗಳF ದೂರುIಾರ"ಗgೆ 50ರೂಗಳ ಕ(cid:11)ೕಷ* ಹಣ Dೕ(cid:24)ರು ಾ=(cid:14)ೆ. ಮ ೆ= 2000ರೂಗಳನು(cid:23) (cid:7)ಾವi(cid:3)Iಾಗ 800ರೂಗಳ ಕ(cid:11)ೕಷ* ಹಣವನು(cid:23) Dೕ(cid:24)ರು ಾ=(cid:14)ೆ. ನಂತರ 9000ರೂ (cid:7)ಾವi(cid:3)Iಾಗ ಅಪ"Qತ ವC^=ಗಳF9000VIP ಗೂ(cid:9)O Lೆ bೇ"(cid:3) Mೆ(cid:5)Lಾ(cid:9)ಂ ಮೂಲಕ ಆ* &ೈ* Mೆ(cid:9)ೕ(cid:24)ಂf ನ(cid:5)(cid:6) ಇಂiಷು]. ಹಣ (cid:3)ಗುತ=Iೆ ಎಂದು aೇc (cid:2)(cid:18)ಾ_ದುIಾರರನು(cid:23) ಆ* &ೈ* Mೆ(cid:9)ೕ(cid:24)ಂf "jಸ].P (cid:27)ಾ(cid:24)(cid:3) ದೂರುIಾರರ
1) ICICI BANK A/C NO.007801075062,
2) ICICI BANK A/C No.171001503704
3) CITI BANK A/C No.5314704819
4) CANARA BANK A/C No.110149125470,
5) ICICI BANK A/C No.171005000740
6) ICICI BANK A/C No.007801075063 SÁvɬÄAzÀ ºÀAvÀ ºÀAvÀªÁV ಒಟು]. 2,28,72,343/- ರೂಗಳನು(cid:23) $$ಧ ಅಪ"Qತ aೆಸ"ನ 4ಾCಂl mಾ ೆಗcLೆ
1) ICICI BANK A/C No.777705777122,
2) ICICI BANK A/C NO.374405000406, 3)ICICI BANK A/C NO.750305500100
4) ICICI BANK A/C No.250105001035
5) ICICI BANK A/C NO.386305000994
6) 000905027390
7) 250105001035
8) ICICI BANK A/C NO.1923305500717
9) ICICI BANK A/C No.081205500731
10) ICICI BANK A/C NO.352505000992,
11) ICICI BANK A/C NO.623705020125
12) CANARA BANK A/C No.43592200004023
13) ICICI BANK A/C No.612401503060
14) ICICI BANK A/C No.015605016700,
15) ICICI BANK A/C No.2370005001289
16) ICICI BANK A/C No.331405000315
17) ICICI BANK A/C No.329905500344
18) ICICI BANK A/C No.774705500024
19) INDUSIND BANK A/C No.201028579824,
20) ICICI BANK A/C No.001605018741,
21) FEDERAL BANK12A/C No.18990100054909
22) INDUSIND BANK A/C No.258290761171
23) ICICI BANK A/C No.034405500886,
24) CATHOLIC SYRIAN BANK A/C No.0013007879750190001,
25) CANARA BANK A/C No.120025772681,
26) ICICI BANK A/C No.602705501633
27) AU SMALL BANK A/C No.2401258055993495
28) AXIS BANK A/C No.9203020060377456
29) PANJAB NATIONAL BANK A/C No.0594000105206736
30) PANJAB NATIONAL BANK A/C No.1756002100019222,
31) KARANATAKA BANK A/C No.941700060001101
32) INDIAN BANK A/C No.100183193800 UÀ½UÉ IMPS & RTGS ಮೂಲಕ (cid:7)ೇ (cid:27)ಾ(cid:24)(cid:3)!ೊಂಡು nದ(cid:5)Lೆ ಸoಲp ಮಟ].ದ ಕ(cid:11)ೕಷ* ಹಣವನು(cid:23) Dೕ(cid:24) ನಂತರ (cid:18)ಾವHIೇ ಹಣವನು(cid:23) (cid:2)(cid:18)ಾ_ದುIಾರ"Lೆ DೕಡIೇ aಾಗೂ ದೂರುIಾರ"ಂದ ವLಾ_ವ.ೆ (cid:27)ಾ(cid:24)(cid:3)!ೊಂಡ ಹಣವನು(cid:23) $R (cid:27)ಾಡಲು qಡIೇ ಪHನಃ ಹಣವನು(cid:23) (cid:7)ೇ (cid:27)ಾಡುವಂ ೆ aೇಳFi=IಾZ(cid:14)ೆಂದು ದೂರು Dೕ(cid:24)ದುZ ದೂರನು(cid:23) ಪgೆದು!ೊಂಡು -ಾ.ಾ n.ಸಂ 124/2024 ಕಲಂ. 66((cid:3)) 66((cid:24)) (cid:27)ಾYi ತಂತ(cid:9)tಾನ !ಾuZ2000aಾಗೂ 420 ಐ(cid:2)(cid:3) "ೕ ಾC ಪ(cid:9)ಕರಣ Iಾಖಲು (cid:27)ಾ(cid:24)!ೊಂ(cid:24)ರುತ=Iೆ. ಸದ" ಪ(cid:9)ಕರಣದ(cid:5)ನ(cid:6) ತDmಾ Eೇvೆಯ(cid:5)(cid:6) ಕಂಡು ಬಂದ ಅಂಶEೇBೆಂದ(cid:14)ೆ ದೂರುIಾರರ CANARA BANK ACCOUNT NO.110149125470 IFSC CODE:CNRB0010651 ¬ÄAzÀ ¢£ÁAPÀ:
13. 02-2024 gÀAzÀÄ RTGS Dr- CNRBR52024021373756428-KARB0000941-SAIF-OIL TRADERS- /FAST/FAST-10,00,000/-, ¢£ÁAPÀ::14-02-2024 gÀAzÀÄ RTGS Dr- CNRBR52024021473801442-KARB0000941-SAIF-OIL TRADERS- -/FAST/FAST-Lೆ, 10,00,000/-. RTGS Dr- CNRBR52024021473807572-KARB0000941-SAIF-OIL TRADERS- /FAST/FAST-10,00,000/-,RTGS Dr-CNRBR52024021473813844- KARB0000941-SAIF-OIL TRADERS-/FAST/FAST-10,00,000/- gÀÆUÀ¼À£ÀÄß »ÃUÉ ಹಂತಹಂತEಾw ಒಟು]. 40,00,000/-ರೂಗಳನು(cid:23) ಸದ" ಪ(cid:9)ಕರಣದ(cid:5)(cid:6)ನ (cid:7)ಾ(cid:9)ಥ(cid:11)ಕ ಆ(cid:14)ೋ(cid:2) aಾಗೂ ¦nµÀ£Àgï ANSARI SABLU HAIDARALI, ACCOUNT HOLDER-SAIF OIL TRADERS OFFICE NO A107FIRST FLOOR SHIVA BLESSING2OPP MUNICIPAL CORPORATION BHAVNAGAR GUJARAT36408 KARNATAKA BANK ACCOUNT No.9417000600001101 IFSC CODE: KARB0000941:19-02- 2024 doch adres KARNATAKA KARB000094 UÉ ªÀUÁðªÀuÉ DVgÀÄvÀÛzÉ. £ÀAvÀgÀ ¢£ÁAPÀ :
19. 02-2024 DgÉÆæAiÀÄ . KARNATAKA BANK ACCOUNT13NO.9417000600001101 IFSC CODE: KARB0000941 C£ÀÄß qÉ©mï ¦üæÃeï ªÀiÁr ªÀiÁ»w Dೕಡುವಂ ೆ ಕBಾ_ಟಕ 4ಾCಂl Bೋಡ‘ ಆ(cid:25)ೕಸP ರವ"Lೆ ಇ7ೕ‘ (cid:27)ಾಡ&ಾwದುZ, (cid:29)Bಾಂಕ:21- 02-2024 ರಂದು KARNATAKA BANK Bೋಡ‘ ರವ"ಂದ ಆ(cid:14)ೋ(cid:2)ಯ 4ಾCಂl bೆ].ೕS7S aಾಗೂ !ೆEೈ(cid:3) $ವರಗಳF ಬಂ(cid:29)ದುZ, ಆ(cid:14)ೋ(cid:2)ಯ KARNATAKA BANK ACCOUNT No.9417000600001101 IFSC CODE: KARB0000941 AiÀÄ ¨ÁåAPï ¸ÉÖÃmï ªÉÄAmï C£ÀÄß ¥Àj²Ã°¹ £ÉÆÃqÀ¯ÁV ¸ÀzÀj ¦nµÀ£Àgï SÁvÉUÉ zÀÆgÀÄzÁgÀjAzÀ ¢£ÁAPÀ :13-02-2024 ºÁUÀÆ 14-02-2024 ರಂದು ಹಂತ ಹಂತEಾw 4 4ಾ" RTGS ಮೂಲಕ 40,00,000/- ರೂಗಳF ಜ7(cid:18)ಾwರುವHದು ಕಂಡು ಬಂ(cid:29)ರುತ=Iೆ. ಆದZ"ಂದ ದೂರುIಾರರ CANARA BANK ACCOUNT No.110149125470 IFSC CODE:CNRB0010651 yಂದ ಸದ" ಪ(cid:9)ಕರಣದ(cid:5)(cid:6)ನ (cid:7)ಾ(cid:9)ಥ(cid:11)ಕ ಆ(cid:14)ೋ(cid:2)(cid:18)ಾದ aಾಗೂ ¦nµÀ£Àgï ANSARI SABLU HAIDARALI gÀªÀgÀ KARNATAKA BANK ACCOUNT No.9417000600001101 IFSC CODE: KARB0000941 £ÉÃgÀªÁV4000,000/- gÀÆUÀ¼ÀÄ ವLಾ_ವ.ೆ(cid:18)ಾwರುವHದ"ಂದ ಆ(cid:14)ೋ(cid:2)ಯ mಾ ೆಯನು(cid:23) (cid:24)(cid:25)(cid:9)ೕ(cid:26) (cid:27)ಾಡ(cid:29)ರಲು ಈ !ೆಳಕಂಡ !ಾರಣಗಳF1 ದೂರುIಾರ"ಂದ ಅj_Iಾರರ mಾ ೆLೆ BೇರEಾw ಹಣ ಜ7(cid:18)ಾwರುವHದ"ಂದ ಸದ" ಕೃತCದ(cid:5)(cid:6)ನ aೆQ1ನ (cid:27)ಾYiಯನು(cid:23) icಯಲು aೆQ1ನ ತDmೆLೆ !ೈLೊಳFGವ ಸಲುEಾw
2) ಆ(cid:14)ೋ(cid:2)ಯು ಕೃತC!ೆ9 ಬಳ(cid:3)ದ mಾ ೆyಂದ ದೂರುIಾರರ ಹಣವನು(cid:23) !ೆಳಹಂತದ mಾ ೆಗcLೆ ವLಾ_ವ.ೆ(cid:27)ಾ(cid:24)ದುZ, ಅವHಗಳ ತDmೆ !ೈLೊಳGಲು
3) ಇi=ೕQನ (cid:29)ನಗಳ(cid:5)(cid:6) ಅ(cid:27)ಾಯಕ ಜನ"Lೆ ಇಂತಹ ಆ* &ೈ* Mೆ(cid:9)ೕ(cid:24)ಂf ನ(cid:5)(cid:6) ಹಣವನು(cid:23) ಹೂ(cid:24)!ೆ (cid:27)ಾ(cid:24)ದ(cid:14)ೆ, ಹೂ(cid:24)!ೆ (cid:27)ಾ(cid:24)ದ ಹಣದ Uೊ ೆಯ(cid:5)(cid:6) ಕ(cid:11)ೕಷ* ಹಣವನು(cid:23) !ೊಡುವHIಾw aೇc ಜನ"ಂದ ಹಣವನು(cid:23) ವLಾ_ವ.ೆ (cid:27)ಾ(cid:24)(cid:3)!ೊಂಡು nೕಸ (cid:27)ಾಡುi=ರುವ Uಾಲ aೆ{ಾ1wರುತ=Iೆ.
4) ಆ(cid:14)ೋ(cid:2)ಯು ಈ ಸದ" ಕೃತC!ೆ9 ಸಂಬಂ@(cid:3)ದಂ ೆ bಾ|ಗಳನು(cid:23) Bಾಶ ಪ(cid:24)ಸುವ bಾಧC ೆyರುವ !ಾರಣ. 14 ಆದZ"ಂದ ಈ 7ೕಲ9ಂಡ !ಾರಣಗcಂದ (cid:2)eಷನP ಆದ ANSARI SABLU HAIDARALI gÀªÀgÀ KARNATAKA BANK ACCOUNT No.9417000600001101 IFSC CODE: KARB0000941 ಅನು(cid:23) (cid:24)(cid:25)(cid:9)ೕ(cid:26) (cid:27)ಾಡುವಂ ೆ ಸ(cid:5)(cid:6)(cid:3)!ೊಂ(cid:24)ರುವ ಅj_ಯನು(cid:23) iರಸ9"ಸ4ೇ!ೆಂದು (cid:27)ಾನC ಘನ BಾC(cid:18)ಾಲಯದ(cid:5)(cid:6) !ೋರ&ಾwIೆ.” The learned Magistrate passes two separate orders. Several accounts are permitted to be de-frozen where amounts were ranging from `9,000/- to `5,00,000/-. When it came to the account of the petitioner, it is rejected. It is rejected on account of the petitioner being a direct beneficiary of fraud. The reason so rendered by the concerned Court to reject the application is as follows: “…. …. ….
11. Further it is pertinent to note that, the account in question of the petitioner bearing No.9417000600001101, of Karnataka Bank, is a primary account, to which an amount of Rs. 40,00,000/- has been directly got transferred from the account No.110149125470 of Canara Bank, standing in the name of daughter of complainant by name Nimisha Ponnuri and the petitioner has been impleaded as one of the accused in the case. Admittedly, the case in hand is still under investigation stage. In such circumstances, the apprehension of the prosecution that, if the account in question of the petitioner is ordered to be defreezed at this stage there are every chances of petitioner tampering the evidence and utilizing the entire amount available in the said account, including the amount of 15 Rs.40,00,000/- got transferred from the account of the daughter of complainant, cannot be easily over-ruled.
12. Further it is pertinent to note that, no where in the application the petitioner has denied the issuance of notice under Sec.41(A) of Cr.P.C. by the investigation, nor contented he has that he has appeared before the investigation officer and provided necessary documents to prove his innocence. If really the petitioner is innocent of the alleged offence, what restrained him from appearing before the investigation officer and submit necessary documents to prove his innocence. In such circumstances, the contentions taken by the prosecution and the allegations made by the investigation officer against the petitioner, with regard to his involvement in commission of alleged offence cannot be easily over-ruled. Further, the petitioner has failed to establish his ownership over the amount in question i.e. Rs.40,00,000/- got credited to his account within the period of 13/02/2024 to 14/02/2014. Therefore, for the above stated reasons, holding that the petitioner has failed to establish reasonable grounds to allow the present application, I answer Point No.1 in Negative.
13. Point No.2: In view of above conclusion, I proceed to pass the following order:
ORDERThe application filed by the petitioner by name ANSARI SABLU HAIDARALI, under Sec.451 and 457 of Cr.P.C., is hereby dismissed. Put up after final report. Sd/-23/4/2004 XLV A.C.M.M., Bengaluru.” The petitioner does not challenge this order, but seeks a direction to de-freeze the account and seeks interim order of stay of registration of the crime, both of which do not take him anywhere. Since the petitioner is the direct beneficiary of the receipt of 16 amount of `40/- lakhs from the hands of the complainant and seeks to feign ignorance as to how it has come into the account, there is lurking suspicion that he is also a part of cartel of online frauds.
8. Whether such freezement can happen of the accounts which are only on the borders of lurking suspicion is considered by the Apex Court in the case of TEESTA ATUL SETALVAD v. STATE OF GUJARAT1, as follows: “…. …. ….
15. The respondents, on the other hand, submit that the investigation is still in progress and the appellants have not given full cooperation to the investigating officer. Rather, the appellants have caused hurdles in the smooth progress of the investigation of the alleged crime. The record would reveal that proper procedure for seizure of the bank accounts was followed and that considering the nature of allegations in the FIR and the material gathered during the investigation thus far, would require elaborate investigation with regard to the subject-matter of the FIR. The High Court had elaborately analysed the material on record while considering the prayer for grant of anticipatory bail of the private appellants and prima facie found substance in the allegations against the appellants of misuse of funds received by them through various donors and that the appellants were not ready and willing to cooperate with the investigation. The respondents would submit that since the investigation is in progress and the material already gathered throws up circumstances which create suspicion of the commission of the alleged offence, therefore, it is imperative to continue the seizure of bank accounts until it is necessary and till the completion of the investigation. If the investigating 1 (2018) 2 SCC37217 officer eventually finds that the accounts are not tainted with the crime, he would not hesitate to defreeze the same or to exclude the untainted amounts.
16. We have heard Mr Kapil Sibal, learned Senior Counsel along with Ms Aparna Bhat, appearing for the appellants and Mr Tushar Mehta, learned Additional Solicitor General along with Mr Ajay Chokshi, appearing for the State of Gujarat.
17. The sweep and applicability of Section 102 of the Code is no more res integra. That question has been directly considered and answered in State of Maharashtra v. Tapas D. Neogy [State of Maharashtra v. Tapas D. Neogy, (1999) 7 SCC685 1999 SCC (Cri) 1352].. 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. This Court noted that there were conflicting decisions of different High Courts on this aspect and as the question was seminal, it chose to answer the same. In para 6, this Court noted thus : (SCC p.
691) “6. A plain reading of sub-section (1) of Section 102 indicates that the police officer has the power to seize any property which may be found under circumstances creating suspicion of the commission of any offence. The legislature having used the expression “any property” and “any offence” have made the applicability of the provisions wide enough to cover offences created under any Act. But the two preconditions for applicability of Section 102(1) are that it must be “property” and secondly, in respect of the said property there must have been suspicion of commission of any offence. In this view of the matter the two further questions that arise for consideration are whether the bank account of an accused or of his relation can be said to be “property” within the meaning of sub-section (1) of Section 18 102 CrPC and secondly, whether circumstances exist, creating suspicion of commission of any offence in relation to the same.
18. After analysing the decisions of different High Courts, this Court in para 12, expounded the legal position thus : (SCC pp. 694-95) “12. Having considered the divergent views taken by different High Courts with regard to the power of seizure under Section 102 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, and whether the bank account can be held to be “property” within the meaning of the said Section 102(1), we see no justification to give any narrow interpretation to the provisions of the Criminal Procedure Code. It is well known that corruption in public offices has become so rampant that it has become difficult to cope up with the same. Then again the time consumed by the courts in concluding the trials is another factor which should be borne in mind in interpreting the provisions of Section 102 of the Criminal Procedure Code and the underlying object engrafted therein, inasmuch as if there can be no order of seizure of the bank account of the accused then the entire money deposited in a bank which is ultimately held in the trial to be the outcome of the illegal gratification, could be withdrawn by the accused and the courts would be powerless to get the said money which has any direct link with the commission of the offence committed by the accused as a public officer. We are, therefore, persuaded to take the view that the bank account of the accused or any of his relations 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. … In the aforesaid premises, we have no hesitation to come to the conclusion that the High Court of Bombay [Chandrashekar Ramprakash Agarwal v. State of Maharashtra, 1997 SCC OnLine Bom 632]. 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.” After this decision, there is no room to countenance the challenge to the action of seizure of bank account of any person 19 which may be found under circumstances creating suspicion of the commission of any offence.
19. 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. That is still a matter of investigation. 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.
20. As regards the procedure for issuing instructions to freeze the bank accounts, it is noticed that the same has been followed by giving intimation to the Magistrate concerned on 21-11-2014 as required in terms of Section 102 of the Code. There is nothing in Section 102 which mandates giving of prior notice to the account- holder before the seizure of his bank account. The Magistrate after noticing that the principle stated by the Division Bench of the Bombay High Court in Shashikant D. Karnik v. State of Maharashtra [Shashikant D. Karnik v. State of Maharashtra, 2008 Cri LJ148(Bom)]. has been overruled in terms of the Full Bench judgment of the Bombay High Court in Vinodkumar Ramachandran Valluvar [Vinodkumar Ramachandran Valluvar v. State of Maharashtra, 2011 SCC OnLine Bom 402 :
2011. Cri LJ2522 , rightly negatived that contention. The Full Bench of the Bombay High Court has expounded that Section 102 does not require issuance of notice to a person before or simultaneously with the action attaching his bank account. In Adarsh Coop. Housing Society Ltd. v. Union of India [Adarsh Coop. Housing Society Ltd. v. Union of India, 2011 SCC OnLine Bom 974 :
2012. Cri LJ520 , the Division Bench of the Bombay High Court once again considered the issue and rejected the 20 argument that prior notice to the account-holder was required to be given before seizure of his bank account. It also noted that the bank account need not be only of the accused but it can be any account creating suspicion about the commission of an offence. The view so taken commends us.
21. In Jayendra Saraswathy Swamigal [Jayendra Saraswathy Swamigal (2) v. State of T.N., (2005) 8 SCC771: (2006) 1 SCC (Civ) 1]. , the Court while considering a transfer petition under Section 406 of the Code, seeking transfer of the case pending before the Principal Sessions Court, Chenglepet, to any other State outside the State of Tamil Nadu, adverted to the circumstance of a motivated order passed under Section 102 of the Code for freezing of 183 bank accounts of the Mutt on the ground that the head of the Mutt was involved in a murder case. In that context, it observed that the power vested under Section 102 of the Code cannot be stretched to irrelevant matters, to extremes and to a breaking point. The power must be exercised cautiously, failing which, the discretion exercised by the authority would be tainted with arbitrariness. In para 23, the Court observed thus: (SCC p.
791) “23. … Again, the action of the State in directing the banks to freeze all the 183 accounts of the Mutt in the purported exercise of the power conferred under Section 102 CrPC, which had affected the entire activities of the Mutt and other associated trusts and endowments only on the ground that the petitioner, who is the head of the Mutt, has been charge-sheeted for entering into a conspiracy to murder Sankararaman, leads to an inference that the State machinery is not only interested in securing conviction of the petitioner and the other co-accused but also to bring to a complete halt the entire religious and other activities of the various trusts and endowments and the performance of pooja and other rituals in the temples and religious places in accordance with the custom and traditions and thereby create a fear psychosis in the minds of the people. This may deter anyone from appearing in court and give evidence in defence of the accused.
22. The Court in Jayendra Saraswathy Swamigal case [Jayendra Saraswathy Swamigal (2) v. State of T.N., (2005) 8 SCC771 (2006) 1 SCC (Civ) 1]. did not lay down as a 21 proposition that it is impermissible to freeze multiple bank accounts, even though circumstances emanating from the nature of transactions effected from the bank accounts concerned and the conduct of the account-holders created suspicion of the commission of an offence. The Court while directing lifting of seizure of bank accounts had noted that the Mutt could not be paralysed by freezing of all its bank accounts in the guise of a direction issued under Section 102 of the Code. Further, the continuation of the seizure of all the bank accounts even after completion of the investigation of the case and filing of charge-sheet was unwarranted.
23. In M.T. Enrica Lexie [M.T. Enrica Lexie v. Doramma, (2012) 6 SCC760: (2012) 3 SCC (Civ) 1024: (2012) 3 SCC (Cri) 309]. , the Court noted in para 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. In that case, it was alleged that while the fishing boat was sailing through Arabian Sea, indiscriminate firing was opened from the vessel in question, as a result of which two innocent fishermen, who were on board, died. The counsel for the State had also conceded that the vessel was no longer required in connection with the offence in question. Indeed, in para 14, the Court made the following observations : (SCC p.
765) “14. The police officer in course of investigation can seize any property under Section 102 if such property is alleged to be stolen or is suspected to be stolen or is the object of the crime under investigation or has direct link with the commission of offence for which the police officer is investigating into. A property not suspected of commission of the offence which is being investigated into by the police officer cannot be seized. Under Section 102 of the Code, the police officer can seize such property which is covered by Section 102(1) and no other.” These observations are in no way different from the proposition expounded in Tapas D. Neogy [State of Maharashtra v. Tapas D. Neogy, (1999) 7 SCC685 1999 SCC (Cri) 1352].. 22
24. Keeping these principles in mind and the material on record, 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. Further, substantial discrepancies have been noticed from the bank accounts, copies of audited account statements and balance sheet. The final account did not tally with the accounts, as submitted. The appellants did not offer credible explanation in that regard, much less satisfactory. According to the respondents, the conduct of the appellants of non-cooperation during the investigation strengthens the suspicion of the commission of an offence. They provided incorrect information. It is also a case of non-disclosure and suppression of material facts. These circumstances create suspicion of the commission of offence under investigation. 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 21-1-2014 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 scrutinised by the competent authority.
25. Suffice it to observe that as the investigating officer was in possession of materials pointing out circumstances which create suspicion of the commission of an offence, in particular, the one under investigation and he having exercised powers under Section 102 of the Code, which he could, in law, therefore, could legitimately seize the bank accounts of the appellants after following the procedure prescribed in sub-section (2) and sub- section (3) of the same provision. As aforementioned, the investigating officer after issuing instructions to seize the stated bank accounts of the appellants submitted report to the Magistrate concerned and thus complied with the requirement of sub-section (3). 23
26. Although both sides have adverted to statement of accounts and vouchers to buttress their respective submissions, we do not deem it necessary nor think it appropriate to analyse the same while considering the matter on hand which emanates from an application preferred by the appellants to defreeze the stated bank accounts pending investigation of the case. Indisputably, the investigation is still in progress. The appellants will have to explain their position to the investigating agency and after investigation is complete, the matter can proceed further depending on the material gathered during the investigation. The suspicion entertained by the investigating agency as to how the appellants appropriated huge funds, which in fact were meant to be disbursed to the unfortunate victims of 2002 riots will have to be explained by the appellants. Further, once the investigation is complete and police report is submitted to the court concerned, it would be open to the appellants to apply for defreezing of the bank accounts and persuade the court concerned 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. It will be open to the court concerned to consider that request in accordance with law after hearing the investigating agency, including to impose conditions as may be warranted in the fact situation of the case.
27. In our opinion, such a course would meet the ends of justice. We say so also because the explanation offered by the appellants in respect of the discrepancies in the accounts, pointed out by the respondents, will be a matter of defence of the appellants.” (Emphasis supplied) The Apex Court clearly holds that there can be no room to countenance the challenge to the action of seizure of Bank account of any person who may be found, under the circumstances, creating suspicion of commission of any offence. Therefore, lurking suspicion can at some times leads to freezement of the account of the 24 accused or the trade trail would lead to transaction with the accused. In the case at hand, there need not be a separate discovery of money trail leading to the account of the petitioner. The petitioner is the direct beneficiary of the alleged fraud, as `40/- lakhs has come into the account of the petitioner from the account of the complainant. There is no intermediary involved in the case at hand to discover both of money trail. Therefore, his account cannot be permitted to be de-frozen. Therefore, the submission of the learned counsel for the petitioner that he is ignorant and his account should be immediately de-frozen is unacceptable.
9. The next issue is compliance with Section 102 of the Cr.P.C. Section 102 of the Cr.P.C., reads as follows: “102. Power of police officer to seize certain property.—(1) Any police officer may seize any property which may be alleged or suspected to have been stolen, or which may be found under circumstances which create suspicion of the commission of any offence. (2) Such police officer, if subordinate to the officer in charge of a police station, shall forthwith report the seizure to that officer. (3) Every police officer acting under sub-section (1) shall forthwith report the seizure to the Magistrate having jurisdiction and where the property seized is such 25 that it cannot be conveniently transported to the Court or where there is difficulty in securing proper accommodation for the custody of such property, or where the continued retention of the property in police custody may not be considered necessary for the purpose of investigation, he may give custody thereof to any person on his executing a bond undertaking to produce the property before the Court as and when required and to give effect to the further orders of the Court as to the disposal of the same: Provided that where the property seized under sub- section (1) is subject to speedy and natural decay and if the person entitled to the possession of such property is unknown or absent and the value of such property is less than five hundred rupees, it may forthwith be sold by auction under the orders of the Superintendent of Police and the provisions of Sections 457 and 458 shall, as nearly as may be practicable, apply to the net proceeds of such sale.” (Emphasis supplied) Sub-section (3) of Section 102 mandates the Investigating Officer to forthwith report to the Magistrate about the seizure of the property. The word ‘forthwith’ is emphasized upon by the petitioner to contend that there is no reporting of the seizure to the learned Magistrate even as on today. This submission is again unacceptable, as communication is made or request is made by the prosecution to freeze all accounts and to reject any application for de-freezement, as quoted supra. This is undoubtedly is made on 06-03-2024 long before the application was filed by the petitioner 26 seeking de-freezement of the account on 04-03-2024. Even otherwise, its non-compliance would not vitiate entire proceedings.
10. The learned counsel for the petitioner has sought to place reliance upon several judgments rendered by the Apex Court, this Court and that of other High Courts. They are as follows: (i) NARAYAN YADAV v. STATE OF KARNATAKA – 2021 SCC OnLine Kar. 15840; (ii) MUKTABEN M.MASHRU v. STATE OF NCT OF DELHI - Crl.M.C. 4206 of 2018 & Crl.M.A.30311 of 2018 of Delhi High Court decided on 29th November, 2019; (iii) ANANDAPRABU v. THE STATE OF TELANGANA – Criminal Petition No.607 of 2021 of Telangana High Court decided on 11-06-2021; (iv) M/s. FONEPAISA PAYMENT SOLUTIONS PVT. LTD. v. THE STATE OF TALANGANA – Criminal Revision Case No.857 of 2022 of Telangana High Court decided on 08.02.2023; (v) SHAINUL DEVANI v. STATE OF TELENGANA – Writ Petition No.15352 of 2023 of Telangana high Court decided on 10-08-2023; (vi) CASHFREE PAYMENTS INDIA PRIVATE LIMITED v. THE STATE OF MAHARASHTRA – Writ petition No.987 of 2023 of Bombay High Court decided on 18-04-2023; 27 (vii) MANOJ KUMAR R v. STATE OF KARNATAKA – Criminal petition No.9590 of 2017 of Karnataka High Court decided on 21-02-2018; (viii) ORUGANTI SESHACHALA VENKATESWARLU v. GOVT. OF ANDHRA PRADESH – 2003 SCC Online AP153 All the aforementioned judgments would now become inapplicable, in the light of later judgment of the Apex Court in the case of SHENTO VARGHESE v. JULFIKAR HUSEN2. The issue framed by the Apex Court, on the facts projected before it, is found at paragraphs 2 to 5. They read as follows: “…. …. ….
2. These appeals have been preferred at the instance of the first informant in Crime No.318 of 2022. By the impugned order dated 09.08.2023, passed in Crl. O.P. Nos. 14029 & 14031 of 2023 and Crl. M.P. Nos. 8658 of 2023, the High Court of Madras has allowed the claim of the Respondents-accused for de-freezing of their bank accounts. The High Court has ordered for de-freezing on the specific ground that there was delay on part of the police in reporting the seizure to the jurisdictional Magistrate. The facts in the instant case, which we shall advert to later below, have given rise to following question of law: What is the implication of non-reporting of the seizure forthwith to the jurisdictional Magistrate as provided under Section 102 (3) Cr. P.C.?. more specifically; 2 2024 SCC OnLine SC89528 Does delayed reporting of the seizure to the Magistrate vitiate the seizure order altogether?. That is the question which needs to be answered in these appeals.
3. Our research indicates that there is no authoritative pronouncement of this Court on this issue. If we turn to the pronouncements of the High Courts, there are decisions1 which have directly confronted this question. Having reviewed these decisions, we find that, broadly, there are two prevailing strands of thought : one set of cases holding that delayed reporting to the Magistrate would, ipso facto, vitiate the seizure order; and the other view being that delayed reporting would constitute a mere irregularity and would not vitiate the seizure order.
4. The former view has been justified on the grounds that: (a) the obligation [u/S1023) Cr. P.C.]. to report the seizure forthwith to the Magistrate is mandatory and non- negotiable, breach of which would qualify as an illegality in following the prescribed statutory procedure; (b) the employment of the word ‘shall’ in Section 102(3) makes it clear that non-compliance of the mandatory requirement to report forthwith to the Magistrate goes to the root of the matter; (c) the power to seize has been subjected to procedural requirements prescribed under Section 102(3) - and breach of complying with follow-up procedures would render the exercise of the main power to be without authority and jurisdiction - in that sense, the requirement to report is in the nature of a condition subsequent clause.
5. The latter view has been sustained on the reasoning that: a) The statutory provision provides no express consequence(s) for non-compliance and therefore, the 29 procedural requirement is merely directory and not mandatory; b) The power to seize property connected with a crime is plenary and the obligation to intimate is a mere incidental exercise of power - breach of the latter cannot affect the former; c) the object of reporting is to facilitate disposal of property seized - prejudice caused by delayed reporting, if any, can always be demonstrated at the trial; d) Neither is there any obligation to seek prior leave before exercising the power to seize nor is there any statutorily provided consequence for non-compliance of the reporting obligation; e) No prejudice would be caused to the owner of a property by non-reporting of seizure to the concerned Magistrate during the investigation phase. Therefore, it cannot be a case of illegality but such an omission may only be an irregularity.” (Emphasis supplied) The answer to the issue is elucidated by the Apex Court from paragraphs 17 to 24. They read as follows: “17. In the background of the aforesaid discussion, therefore, the line of precedents which have taken the position that ‘seizure orders’ are vitiated for delay in compliance with the reporting obligation are declared to be manifestly erroneous and are accordingly, overruled. The relevant question to be determined was not whether the duty of the police to report the seizure to the Magistrate is mandatory or directory. Instead, what ought to have been inquired into was whether the exercise of the seizure power was subjected to 30 compliance of reporting obligation, as illustrated in Section 105E Cr. P.C.
18. Merely because we have held that non reporting of the seizure forthwith by the police officer to the jurisdictional court would not vitiate the seizure order, it would not mean that there would be no consequence whatsoever as regards the police officer, upon whom the law has enjoined a duty to act in a certain way. Since there is an obligation cast on the officer to report the seizure forthwith, it becomes necessary to understand the meaning of the expression forthwith as used in Section 102(3) CrPC. For, without a clear understanding of the said expression, the Magistrate would not be in a position to determine whether the obligation cast on the police officer has been properly complied with. In this background, the expression ‘shall forthwith report the seizure to the Magistrate’ occurring in subsection (3) of the Section 102 requires to be examined.
19. The meaning of the word ‘forthwith’ as used in Section 102(3) has not received judicial construction by this Court. However, this Court has examined the scope and contours of this expression as it was used under the Maintenance of Internal Security Act, 1971; Preventive Detention Act, 1950; Section 157(1) of the Cr. P.C.; and Gujarat Prevention of Anti-Social Activities Act, 1985 in the case of Sk. Salim v. State of West Bengal, Alla China Apparao v. State of Andhra Pradesh and Navalshankar Ishwarlal Dave v. State of Gujarat.
20. This Court, in Rao Mahmood Ahmad Khan v. Ranbir Singh, has held that the word ‘forthwith’ is synonymous with the word immediately, which means with all reasonable quickness. When a statute requires something to be done ‘forthwith’ or ‘immediately’ or even ‘instantly’, it should probably be understood as allowing a reasonable time for doing it.
21. The expression ‘forthwith’ has been defined in Black's Law Dictionary, 10th Edition as under:
31. “forthwith, adv. (14c) 1. Immediately; without delay.
2. Directly; promptly; within a reasonable time under the circumstances; with all convenient dispatch” Wharton's Law Lexicon, 17th Edition describes ‘forthwith’ as extracted: Forthwith, When a defendant is ordered to plead forthwith, he must plead within twenty four hours. When a statute or rule of Court requires an act to be done ‘forthwith’, it means that the act is to be done within a reasonable time having regard to the object of the provision and the circumstances of the case [Ex parte Lamb, [L.R.]. 19 Ch. 169; 2 Chit. Arch. Prac., 14th Edition].
22. From the discussion made above, it would emerge that the expression ‘forthwith’ means ‘as soon as may be’, ‘with reasonable speed and expedition’, ‘with a sense of urgency’, and ‘without any unnecessary delay’. In other words, it would mean as soon as possible, judged in the context of the object sought to be achieved or accomplished.
23. We are of the considered view that the said expression must receive a reasonable construction and in giving such construction, regard must be had to the nature of the act or thing to be performed and the prevailing circumstances of the case. When it is not the mandate of the law that the act should be done within a fixed time, it would mean that the act must be done within a reasonable time. It all depends upon the circumstances that may unfold in a given case and there cannot be a straight-jacket formula prescribed in this regard. In that sense, the interpretation of the word ‘forthwith’ would depend upon the terrain in which it travels and would take its colour depending upon the prevailing circumstances which can be variable.
24. Therefore, in deciding whether the police officer has properly discharged his obligation under Section 102(3) Cr. P.C., the Magistrate would have to, firstly, examine whether the seizure was reported forthwith. In doing so, it ought to have regard to the 32 interpretation of the expression, ‘forthwith’ as discussed above. If it finds that the report was not sent forthwith, then it must examine whether there is any explanation offered in support of the delay. If the Magistrate finds that the delay has been properly explained, it would leave the matter at that. However, if it finds that there is no reasonable explanation for the delay or that the official has acted with deliberate disregard/wanton negligence, then it may direct for appropriate departmental action to be initiated against such erring official. We once again reiterate that the act of seizure would not get vitiated by virtue of such delay, as discussed in detail herein above.” (Emphasis supplied) The Apex Court holds that seizure orders, merely because they are not reported to the learned Magistrate immediately, will not vitiate the seizure order, but if the Investigating Officer has no reasonable explanation for the delay, he may become open to appropriate departmental action. The Apex Court overrules about 36 judgments rendered by various High Courts of the country including this Court holding that they are not good law.
11. The submission of the learned counsel for the petitioner that there is no reporting of the debit freeze order to the learned Magistrate and, therefore, the account should be de-frozen, is again unacceptable, as the Apex Court holds that non-reporting of the 33 freezement order or the seizure order to the learned Magistrate forthwith would not vitiate the very order, but if the action of the Officer in delaying reporting to the learned Magistrate is found to be deliberate and unacceptable, he would face a departmental enquiry. Therefore, all that the Investigating Officer in the case at hand would face is a departmental enquiry, if there is delay and the delay is not satisfactorily explained, he shall be proceeded with the departmental enquiry in accordance with the direction of the Apex Court. The petitioner cannot harp upon non-reporting to get the freezement order vitiated.
12. Therefore, on both the counts, one being lurking suspicion leading to the freezing of the account of the petitioner, and the fact that non-reporting of the freezement forthwith to the learned Magistrate not vitiating the order of freezement, the petition does not merit any entertainment at this juncture. 34
13. For the aforesaid reasons, the following:
ORDER(i) Writ Petition stands rejected. (ii) It is for the petitioner to avail of such remedies as available in law, at the appropriate time, before the appropriate forum/fora and at the appropriate stage. Sd/- (M. NAGAPRASANNA) JUDGE bkp CT:MJ