Bank accounts frozen during investigations into suspected diversion of funds were challenged for delayed reporting to Magistrates. The court held that reporting delay did not itself invalidate seizure, accepted the pandemic-related delay, and dismissed both petitions, leaving statutory remedies before the Magistrates open.
This page shows the compact analysis of this judgement. The full analysis — procedural history, issue-by-issue holdings with ratio and obiter, advocates, and paragraph-level evidence for every claim — is being added to the record in batches and will appear here when this judgement has been through it.
HIGH COURT FOR THE STATE OF TELANGANA AT HYDERABAD
(Special Original Jurisdiction)
THURSDAY, THE THIRD DAY OF DECEMBER TWO THOUSAND AND TWENTY
PRESENT
THE HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE P. NAVEEN RAO
WRIT PETITION Nos.13363 and 10565 of 2020
WRIT PETITION NO: 13363 OF 2020
Between:
...PETITIONERS
AND
...RES'.NDENTS
Petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of lndia praying that in the circumstances stated in the affidavit filed therewith, the High Court may be pleased to issue a Writ of l,4andamus or any other appropriate Writ, Order or Orders, Direction or Directions to declare the action of the 3'd respondent in issuing proceedings No.Cr.2/20/ACP-A-D|v/CCS/HYD dated'19.03.2020 and No. Cr.2l20l ACP-A-Div/CCSi HYD dated 19.03.2020 to the respondents 7 to t herein whereby he directed the respective banks to freeze the bank account of the 1't petitioner herein, as illegal, arbitrary and u nco nstitutio na I and to set aside the same and to direct the 3rd respondent to act in accordance with law.
ilzil
lA NO: 1 OF 2020
Petition under Section'1 51 CPC praying that in the circumstances stated in the affidavit filed in support of thepetition, the High Court may bepleased to suspend the proceedings of the 3rd respondent in No. Cr.2/20lACP-A-Div/CCS/HYD dated 19.03.2020 and No. Cr.2l20lACP-A-D|v/CCS/HYD dated 19.03.2020, issued to the respondents 7 to t herein directing them to freeze the bank accounts of the 1't petitioner herein maintained in those respective banks, pending disposal of the Writ Petition.
Counsel for the Petitioner: SRl. VEDULA SRINIVAS
Counsel for the Respondent Nos.1 to 3: AGP FOR HOME
Counsel for the Respondent Nos.4 to 6: SRI P. SHIV KUMAR
Counsel for the Respondent No.7: SRI M.V.S. PRASAD
Counsel for the Respondent Nos.8 & 9: NONE APPEARED
WRIT PETITION NO: 10565 OF 2020
Between:
l,4/s. Singareni Collieries Officers Cooperative House Building Society Ltd., (Regd. No.TAB-245 of 1979), Singareni Colony, Saidabad, Hyderabad - 500059. Rep. by its Secretary, D. Balasubrahmanyam, S/o. late Subrahmanyam, Aged about 74 years.
...PETITIONER
AND
...RESPONDENTS
Petition under Article 226 o'f the Constitution of lndia praying that in the circumstances stated in the affidavit filed therewith, the High Court may be pleased to issue a Writ of l\4andamus or any other appropriate Writ, Order or Orders, Direction or Directions to declare the proceedings of the 3'c respondent in No.lr,4iss/SG BD/ PS1HYD12020 dated 18,06.2020, whereby the current account of the petitioner bearing No.378268809396 lying with the 5rh respondent Bank has been seized, as illegal, arbitrary and invalid and to set aside the same and to direct the 3'd and 4rh respondents to act in accordance with law.
il3il
lA NO: 1 OF 2020
Petition under Section 151 CPC praying that in the circumstances stated in the affidavit filed in support of the petition, the High Court may be pleased to suspend the proceedings of the 3'd respondent in No.Miss/SGBDIPSIHYDI2O2O dated 18.06.2020, whereby the current account of the petitioner bearing No.378268809396 lying with the 5th respondent Bank has been seized,pending disposal of the Writ Petition.
Counsel for the Petitioner: SRl. VEDULA SRINIVAS
Counsel for the Respondent Nos.1 to 4: AGP FOR HOME
Counsel for the Respondent No.5: SRI AMBADIPUDI SATYANARAYANA
Counsel for the Respondent No.6: NONE APPEARED
The Court made the following: COMMON ORDER
PNI{..I \Up_ I 3363_10565_2020
a
HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE P.NAVEEN RAO
WRIT PETITION NOs.13363 AND 10565 OF 2O2O
COMMON ORDER:
In these two writ petitions the petitioners challenge freezing of their bank accounts in exercise of power under Section 102(1) of Code of Criminal Procedure (Cr.P.C.). As the issue in the writ petitions is same, they are heard and considered together.
W.P.No.13363 of 2O2O:
\ p_1 336-l_10565 102{)
filed on 17 .O8.2O2O in the courr of XII Additional Chief Metropolitan Magistrate at Nampally.
W.P.No.15O56 of 2O2O:
PNR.J Wp_1 3363_10565_2020
.+
and, therefore, the decisions to freeze the bankaccounts are vitiated on that ground alone and the freezing orders arenot sustainable in law. According to the learned counsel, compliance with Section 102 (3) of Cr. P. C. , is mandatory and non-compliance thereof would vitiate the orders freezing bank accounts.
I4!ir'EG!E-r1_a-a
I
I r \ I..1
Wp.-l 3363_l 056-s_2020
of 2O2O has adversely affected the functionir-rg of the petitioner socletv
i) Sk. Salim vs. the State of West Bengall;
ii) Keshav Nilkanth Joglekat vs. The Commissioner of Police, Greater Bombay2;
iii) Alla China Apparao and others vs. State of Andhra Pradesh3;
iv) Rao Mahmood Ahmed Khan vs. Rambir Singh and othersr I
v) Navalshankar Ishwarlal Dave and others vs. State of Gujarat and otherss;
vi) Gopal Mondal vs, State of West Bengal6;
vii) Arunima Baruah vs. Union of India (UOI) and othersT;
viii) Vinoskumar Ramachandran Valluvar and others vs. The State of Maharashtra and othersS.
1 1. According to the learned Assistant Government Pleader, bank accounts are freezed as part of the investigation into the crimes reported against the petitioners and are the crime properties. Petitioners ought to have approach thejurisdictional Magistrate seeking to grant interim custody of the property seized and, therefore, when an alternative remedy is available, writ petition is not maintainable. He points out that the Police force was involved in various aspects relating to pandemic and,
'AIR1957 sc 692
, AIR 1957 SC 28
3 2003{1) ACR 34 (SC)
{ AIR 1995 SC 2195
i AIR 1994 SC 1496
6 Air 1957 SC 1807
r 2007(3) ALLMR (SC) 81 1
8 r (2012) BC 5
I
PN R.J Wp 13363 10565_2020
6
therefore, there was delay in intimating to thejurisdictional Magistrates about the freezing of bank accounts andit was not intentional. He would submit that if warranted thePolice would explain the reasons for delay to the trial Courts. Hewould further submit that investigation is still going on and pima faciecase is made out against the petitioners and, therefore, de-freezingol bank accounts at this stage would greatly hamper the investigation. He u,ould further submit that $,hat is alleged by the petitioners is a curable defect and, therefore, delal'cannot inure to the benefit of the petitioners to de-freeze the crimeproperty even before the investigation is completed.
'zors 1:1arrras
wp_13363_ I 0s65_2020
1
the compctent Court ought to be made rvithin a reasonable time. Having regard to the present pandemic situation and lockdou'n of Courts, the intimation given by the respondent-Police cannot be said as not within a reasonable time. Heq,ould submit that delay is not fatal and cannot invalidate the freezing ol bank accounts. He would submit that the word 'forthwith' has to be liberally construed. He would submit that as held by the Division Bench of this Court in Mohd.Maqbool Ahmed @ Mateen and another vs,
The Deputy Commissloner of Police, Special Investigation Team, Hyderabad and otherslo, the issue on illegality in lreezing the bank account can be agitated before the concerned Courts during the trial and freezing of bank account is not vitiated on the ground of dela1, in intimation to the concerned Magistrate.
| 4 . According to thc learned counsel lor petitioners Sri Vedula Srinivas, in Mohd,Mazbool Ahmed, no issue was framed and decided on the aspect of delay in intimation of seizure of property andq,hat is relied upon are only observations and, therefore, are not binding on this Court. Further, more than two months time taken by the Police to intimate the freezing of bank account cannot be said as reasonable time. No reasons are assigned for such delay. Perforce, as freezing of bank accounts are vitiated on the face of it, petitioners need not be compelled to avail theremedy provided by Sections 451 and 457 of Cr.P.C.
t 1996 (3) ALT 21s (D.8.)
PNR,J wp_13363 10565_2020
8
"S.1O2.Powerof police officerto seizecertain property.
(1) Any police officer, may seize any property rvhich 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 forths,ith report the seizure to that officer.
(3) Every police officer acting under sub- section (1) shall forthrvith report the sezure to the Magistrate having jurisdiction and s,here the property seized is such that it cannot be conveniently transported to the Court, he may give custody thereof to any person on his executing a bond undertaking to produce the propertl before the Court as and u,hen required and to give effect to the lurther orders of the Court as to the disposal of the same."
wp_13363_1056s_2020
9
destroyed frustrating the investigation and trial. In Navada Properties Private Limited Vs State of Maharastrall, the Hon'ble Supreme Court u as considering thc scope of Section I 02 of Criminal Proccdure Code, particularly, what is meant by 'an1,. property'. To the cxtent relevant paragraph 2O reads as under:
"2O......... Equalll' important, lor thc purposc of intcrprctation ts the scope and object of Scction 102 of the Code, ,,r'hich is ro help and assist invcsrigation and ro enable the policc officer to collecr and collate cvidence to bc produccd to prove thc charge complained of and set up in the charge shect. Thc Section is a part of the provisions concerning invesrrgation undertaken by the police officer. After the charge sheet is filed, the prosecution leads and produces evidence lo sccure conviction. Section 102 is not, per se, an enabling provision by rvhich the police officer acts to seize lhe property to dojustice and to hand over the property to a person whom the police officer feels is the rightlul and true owner. This is clear from the objcctive behind Section 102, use of the words in the Section and the scope and ambit of the power conferred on the Criminal Court vide Sections 451 to 459 of the Code. The expresslon 'eircumstances which create suspicion of the commisslon of any offence' in Section 1O2 doea not refer to a firm oplnion or an adjudication/flnding by a police oflicer to aacertaln whether or Dot 'eny property' ls requhed to be seized. The word 'suspicion'ls a weaker anda broader expression than 'reasoDable belief or 'sati8faction'. The police officer lg an investigator and not an adjudlcator or a decision maker.,............."
(emphasis supplied)
20 . Section 1 02 (3) of Cr. P. C. , requires the Police Officer concerned to forthwith report the seizure of property to the Magistrate havingjurisdiction. Learned counsel for petitioner focussed on the u,ord 'forth$'ith' employed in sub-section(3) of Section 102 Cr.P.C. to contcnd that soon after bank accounts\.'ere frozen concerned Magistrates i,,'ere not informed and therefore freezing was vitiate d.
2)-: There are two aspects to the issue. Firstly, whatis meantby 'forthwith' and secondly, even if therewas admitteddelaywill that vitiate seizure per se.
"2019 scconline sc 1247
PNR..I Wp 13363_10565_2020
t0
FoRTHWTTH: (i)
There is no decision of Hon'ble Supreme Court and this Court on what is meant by the u,ord 'forthwith' emploved in Section 102 (3). The r,',ord 'forthwith' is employed in several enactments. Scope of this rvord as employed in Maintenance ol Internal Security Act, 197 1; Preventive Detention Act, 1950; Section 157 (1) of Cr.P.C.; Gujarat Prevention of Anti-Social Activities Act, 1985 was considered by the Hon'ble Supreme Court. From these precedents, guidance can be taken on enunciation of law on the word 'forthwith'.
r 1\ I.J
Wp 13363 10565 2020
1i
oforesaid factors, the expression 'forthwith' within the meaning of Section 157(1) of Cr.P.C., obuiouslg cannot mean that the proseantion is required to explain euery hour's delag in sending the ftrstinformation report to the Magistrote, of course,the samehas to be sent uith reasonable despatch, which tuould obuiouslg mean ttithin a reasonable possible time in the ciranmstances preuailing" [paragraph-9,Alla China Apparao andothers vs. State of AndhraPradesh - AIR 2oo2 sc 36481. The meaning of thc u'ord 'forthq'ith' is synonymous of the word immediately, u,hich means with all reasonable quickness, speed and expeditiorr, prompt time with a sense of urgency, without any unavoidable delay. No hard and fast rule can be laid nor a particular period be prescribed. [Paragraph-g, Rao Mahmood Ahmed Khan vs. Ranbir Stngh - AIR 1995 SC 2195; Paragraph-9, Nevalsharkar Ishwarlal Deva aDd othera vs. State of Gujarat - ArR 1994 SC 14961.
2l .2 From the basketlul of decisions on what is meant by 'forthwith' it can be culled out that it means'as soon as may be', 'with reasonable speed and expedition', with a sense of urgency' and tithout any unavoidable delay'. In other words, it does not mean instantaneous, the moment when a decision is made/ simultaneous.
(ii) DELAY:
.-.,u
PNIt.J Wp_13363 10565_2020
12
Wp_13363 10565_2020
ii
suspicion of diversion of money directly attributable to crimes, the Court has.to lien in favour of allowing the Police Officer to continue his investigation and not to interfere with his decision to freeze the bank accounts per se.
"8. In two eventualities, a police officer, acting under Section l021Ll Cr.P.C., mal seize any property(i) alleged or suspected to have been stolen; or (ii) found under circumstances creating suspicion of commission of an offence. The finding of property need not alwaysprecede the suspicion of commission of an offence in relation to that property. Once it is suspected by a police officer that a crime has been committed and in the course of the investigation, he comes across any property, which is involved or suspected
PNR.J Wp 13363 10565,2020
1+
to have been invoived or has any link with the crime underinvestiBation,in our view, he has power to effect seizure of thatproperty under sub-section (1) of Section 102 Cr.P.C. Any other interpretation would be totally unrealistic and frustrate the attempts of theinvestigatingagencyto effectively detect the crimes."
28.1. The Division Bench affirmed the view taken by the Madras
High Court in Bharat Overseas Bank vs' Minu Publicationsr2.
The relevant portion of thejudgment of the Division Bench reads
as under:
"On the question as to the failure on the part of the police officer to reporl the seizure to thejurisdictional Magistrate as required by Sub-section(3) of Section 102 Cr.P.C, the learned Judge held:
"Not every flaw in investigation, would invalidate proceedings. It would be premature now, tojudge prejudice caused lo the accused. If the second respondent has not reportcd about the seizure to the Court yet, hc shall do the same forthwith. In the event of a trial,jt rvould be open to the accuscd to put fonvard this piea of prejudice in the light oi the facts availablc.
In our considelcd opinion, this is Lhc corr(ict legal posirion So iilr r.is lhe present case is conccrned, there is io allegation rn thc aflidirvrr lllccl in support of the rr'rit petition that thc requircment of Sub section 13) of Scctron 102 Cr.P.C., rvas breached. For thc iirst time in the repll affidavit, this plea was taken and rhe learned Covcrnment Pleadcr contcnds, rrghtl], that the averments in the reply affidavit cannot bc the basis for the \Lrit pt'tirion. Euen .rssumlng Sectlo^ 1O2 thdt Cr mere .P.C., @ds ^on.compllaice of l^ that the pollce the requlrernent olllcer has not of Sub-sectio^ lnJormed(3) theoJ Jurisdtctton(:lMaglstrdted.boutthe factumoJ selziftgoJ theba'!.k o.ccollnts oJ the petltloners hereln, such d coutse oJ dctlo^ ttotld. ^ot l^odlldate the ordet pa.ssed. Und.er Sub-sectlon (1) oJf Sectlon 102 Cr,P.C, Jreezlng the ba k accounts. we ma.ke lt cleo.r thdt lt ls d.lu)ags open to the petltlofters to mooe the crlmh@l cotrt d.Jter the chd,rge-sheet ls J7led. Jor appropriate orders as to the hddd.ll^g oJ ba.^k(rccor]ftts a.nd. the crlmlftd.t Court wlll pd.ss s-lnltqble ord.ers ln the llght oJ thejdct sltl.t(rtlo,..'
(Empl.rasis supplied)
'tt98s 121crimes156
I L\ N..' Wp 13363 10-\65 2020
l5
"... the field of investigation of any cognizable offence is exclusively wirhin the domain of the investigating agencies over which the courts cannot have control and have no power to stifle or impinge upon the proceedings in the investigation so long as the investigation proceeds in compliance with the provisions relating to investigation.. ..'
34, IL is apt to note the obsen'ations of the Hon'ble Supreme
Court in Union of India v. W.N. Chadhar3:
''1993 supp(4) SCC 260
PNIT,J Wp_13363_10565 2020
l6
"89......... When the investigating offlcer is not deciding any matler except collecting the materials for ascertaining whether a prima facie case is made out or not and a full enquiry in case of filing a report under Section 173(2) follows in a trial before the Court or Tribunal pursuant to the filing of the report, it cannot be said that at that stage rule of audi alteram partem superimposes an obligation to issue a prior notice and hear the accused which the statute does not expressly recognise. The question is not rvhether audi alteram partem is implicit, but whether the occasion for its attraction exists at all.
19.3.2O2O to the petitioners' banks to freeze bank accounts and he
I
I r\I.J wp 13363_10565_2020
t7
has intimated thc Chief Metropolitan Magistrate through e-mail on Oa.O9.2O2O and in W.P.No.15O56 of 2O2O, t]ne Police Olficer ordered freezing of bank account on 18.06.2020 and he has intimated the jurisdictional Magistrate on 05.10.2020. From March, 2O2O th,e entire world is confronted with pandemic. Police have played key role in eoforcing orders/guidelines of the Government of India and the State Government to prevent spread of the virus, sacrificing their life for the cause of humanity. The attention of entire police force is diverted to enforce orders / guidelines to prevent spread of virus and they are still involved in this exercise. It is an extraordinary circumstance. During this period, it is possible to keep aside certain aspects ol police functioning, and pay special attention on pandemic related aspects. Thus, in these extraordinary circumstances, some leniency can be shorvn to the action of Police in not reporting the seizure to the concerned Magistrates immediately after the seizure. As the term 'forthwith' has 'elastic import' [Keshav Nllkanth Joglekar (supra)], and in the peculiar fact situation, the time taken to report to the concerned Magistrates can be said as reasonable and without undue delay.
37 . Further, whether Police Officer applied his mind and satisfied on fulfilment of ingredients of seizure are matters for consideration by trial Court and it is permissible for the accused to raise such pleas, before the learned Magistrate but not in proceedings under Article 226 of the Constitution of India.
PNR,J Wp_l3363_10565 2020
l8
power in the Magistrate to deal with the property as deemedproper and necessary. An accused whoseproperty is seized bypolice officer can file application to grant interim custody. This is an effective and efficacious remedv.
Wp 13363_10565,2020
19
pctitioners to file appropriate application before the criminal Court rcgarding handling of bank accounts.
41.. It is made clear that there is no expression of opinion on merits. The discussion herein above is to consider the prayers in the writ petition. Petitioners are at liberty to avail appropriate remedy envisaged by the Code of Criminal Procedure.
miscellaneous petitions, if any pending, stand closed.
SD/. K.AMMAJI ASSISTANTREGISTRAR //TRUE COPY// Ctr',. SECTIONOFFICER
To,
1 . 10 LR Copies 2. The UnderSecretary, Unionof lndia' IVinistry of Law' Justice and Company affairs, NewDelhi
a iri".,"cCiiSriVedula SrinivasAdvocate[oPUC] 5 Two ccsto GP for H"r;] ilthtiu;Ioi in" Stii" of relansana at Hvderabad IOUT] o. 5#'cc to SrrP. Shiv Kumar, Advocate1,9iy.91 7. 6.nE 6d i; 5;iN/ V S PrasadAdvocatetoP.ugl 8. 6,# Ed i6 5,in.nuoipuois-atvJnaravan'a Advbcate[oPUCl 9 Two CD CoPies
CHR
HIGH COURT
DATED:0311212020
COMMON ORDER
.<br>i
1 H E S rA
(
o 0 I DEC 2020
C)
t1
-, )a
.,iS
W.P.Nos.13363 and 10565 ot 2020
DISMISSING THE BOTH WRIT PETITIONS WITHOUT COSTS
N 'tcD,o'
L
3 issues framed by the court
Did delay in reporting the freezing of bank accounts to the jurisdictional Magistrates invalidate the seizures?
Were the freezing orders invalid for want of a prior hearing or assigned reasons?
Should writ relief be granted when interim custody could be sought before the Magistrates under Sections 451 and 457 Cr.P.C.?
Colour shows how this judgement treated each authority
Sk. Salim vs. the State of West BengalRelied on¶133
Sk. Salim vs. the State of West Bengal
Keshav Nilkanth Joglekat vs. The Commissioner of Police, Greater BombayApplied¶188
AIR 1957 SC 28 · Who else cites this
Alla China Apparao and others vs. State of Andhra PradeshRelied on¶137
Alla China Apparao and others vs. State of Andhra Pradesh
Rao Mahmood Ahmed Khan vs. Rambir Singh and othersRelied on¶137
AIR 1995 SC 2195 · Who else cites this
Navalshankar Ishwarlal Dave and others vs. State of Gujarat and othersRelied on¶137
AIR 1994 SC 1496 · Who else cites this
Gopal Mondal vs. State of West BengalReferred¶85
Gopal Mondal vs, State of West Bengal
Arunima Baruah vs. Union of India (UOI) and othersReferred¶86
Arunima Baruah vs. Union of India (UOI) and others
Vinoskumar Ramachandran Valluvar and others vs. The State of Maharashtra and othersReferred¶87
Vinoskumar Ramachandran Valluvar and others vs. The State of Maharashtra and others
W.P.No.7044 of 2019 dated 04.07.2019Referred¶101
Govind Raju Sami vs. State of Telangana and othersReferred¶101
Govind Raju Sami vs. State ofTelangana and others
Mohd.Maqbool Ahmed @ Mateen and another vs, The Deputy Commissloner of Police, Special Investigation Team, Hyderabad and othersFollowed¶152
Mohd. Maqbool Ahmed (supra)
Navada Properties Private Limited Vs State of MaharastraRelied on¶123
2019 scconline sc 1247
Bharat Overseas Bank vs. Minu PublicationsReferred¶158
Bharat Overseas Bank vs' Minu Publications
State of Haryana v. Bhajan LalRelied on¶170
State of Haryana v. Bhajan Lal - [1992 Supp (1) SCC 3351 · Who else cites this
Union of India v. W.N. ChadhaRelied on¶175
1993 supp(4) SCC 260 · Who else cites this
3 provisions across 2 enactments
A.P. Products
Yagyanand
Singareni Collieries Officers Cooperative House Building Society Ltd.
State of Telangana
Commissioner of Police, Hyderabad
Sub-lnspector of Police, (WCO) A-Divison, CCS Police Contrl Room, Hyderabad
P. NAVEEN RAO
As recorded by the court registry
Judgements on the same questions, provisions and authorities, from every court
