Case: Teesta Atul Setalvad & Others Vs. State of Gujarat & Others


Decision:
0[ds]14. The sweep and applicability of Section 102 of the Code is no more res integra.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.17. 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.18. 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 concerned Magistrate on 21st November, 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.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 ofduring the investigation strengthens the suspicion of the commission of an offence. They provided incorrect information. It is also a case ofand 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 21.01.2014 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.22. 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 inion (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(3).23. 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 tothe 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 concerned Court, it would be open to the appellants to apply forof 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(3) of Section 102 of the Code. It will be open to the concerned Court 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.24. 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.25. We clarify that at an appropriate stage or upon completion of the investigation, if the Investigating Officer is satisfied with the explanation offered by the appellants and is of the opinion that continuance of the seizure of the stated bank accounts or any one of them is not necessary, he will be well advised to issue instruction in that behalf.