IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE ANTONY DOMINIC FRIDAY, THE 30TH SEPTEMBER 2011 / 8TH ASWINA 1933 WP(C).No. 20072 of 2011(H) -------------------------- PETITIONER(S): ---------------------- RASHEED.N.S, NAIKAMAVELI HOUSE, IRAMALLOOR.P.O, KOTHAMANGALAM. BY ADV. SRI.K.PRAVEEN KUMAR RESPONDENT(S): ------------------------ 1. STATE OF KERALA, REPRESENTED BY THE SECRETARY, HOME DEPARTMENT, SECRETARIAT, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM-695001. 2. THE CIRCLE INSPECTOR OF POLICE, KOTHAMANGALAM, ERNAKULAM DISTRICT-686691. 3. THE STATION HOUSE OFFICER, KOTHAMANGALAM POLICE STATION, ERNAKULAM DISTRICT-686691. 4. THE CHIEF MANAGER, STATE BANK OF TRAVANCORE, KOTHAMANGALAM BRANCH, ERNAKULAM-686691. ADV. SRI.SATHISH NINAN FOR R4 SR.GOVT.PLEADER SMT.M.J.RAJASHREE THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 30/09/2011, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING: WPC NO.20072/11 APPENDIX PETITIONER'S EXHIBITS EXT.P1: TRUE COPY OF THE CERTIFICATE ISSUED BY THE 4TH RESPONDENT ON 19.4.11 //TRUE COPY// P.A. TO JUDGE Rp ANTONY DOMINIC, J. ================ W.P.(C) NO. 20072 OF 2011 ===================== Dated this the 30th day of September, 2011 J U D G M E N T The prayer sought in the writ petition is to direct the respondents to lift the order freezing Bank Account No.67094932731 of the petitioner with the 4th respondent Bank. 2. Petitioner submits that he is a businessman and a District Committee member of Popular Front of India, Ernakulam District and that he is not involved in any non bailable offence. It is stated that without any justification whatsoever, respondents 2 and 3 have issued directions to the 4th respondent to freeze his bank account and that justifying the same, Bank has issued Ext.P1. It is in the said circumstances, the writ petition has been filed. 3. Learned Government Pleader has obtained instructions in the matter. According to the learned Government Pleader, petitioner is an active member of the Popular Front of India, Ernakulam District and that as part of the investigation into Crime No.704/10 of Muvattupuzha Police Station, house of the petitioner was searched. It is stated that infuriated by the said investigative WPC No. 20072/11 :2 : action of the police, petitioner threatened the police officials and Crime No.512/10 was registered against him. It is stated that, as part of the investigation into the aforesaid two crimes, the antecedents and activities of the petitioner are also being investigated and that it was as part thereof that the Bank account of the petitioner was also frozen. They say that under Section 102(1) of the Cr.P.C, they are entitled to seize any property, which may be found under circumstances which create suspicion of the commission of any offence. 4. Section 102(1) of the Cr.P.C. reads as under: “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”. 5. This section entitles the police officer to seize any property, which is suspected to have been stolen and which may be found under circumstances which create suspicion of the commission of any offence. The question whether the bank account is a property within the scope of Section 102(1) has been the subject matter of judicial interpretation of various courts. All these judgments have been surveyed by the Apex Court and the WPC No. 20072/11 :3 : controversy has been laid to rest in the judgment in State of Maharashtra v. Tapas D.Neogy {(1999) 7 SCC 685), where it has been authoritatively held as follows:- “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. The contrary view expressed by the Karnataka, Gauhati and Allahabad High Courts, does not represent the correct law. It may also be seen that under the Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988, in the matter of imposition of fine under sub-section(2) of Section 13, the legislatures have provided that the courts in fixing the amount of fine shall take into consideration the amount or the value of the property which the accused person has obtained by committing the offence or where WPC No. 20072/11 :4 : the conviction is for an offence referred to in clause (e) of sub-section (1) of Section 13, the pecuniary resources or property for which the accused person is unable to account satisfactorily. The interpretation given by us in respect of the power of seizure under Section 102 of the Criminal Procedure Code is in accordance with the intention of the legislature engrafted in Section 16 of the Prevention of Corruption Act referred to above. In the aforesaid premises, we have to 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. Though we have laid down the law, but so far as the present case is concerned, the order impugned has already been given effect to and th accused has been operating his account, and so, we do not interfere with the same.” 6. In such circumstances, I do not find any illegality warranting interference. Writ petition is dismissed. ANTONY DOMINIC, JUDGE Rp