RAM NARESH TIWARI Vs. STATE OF CHHATTISGARH

JUDGEMENT

(1.) Petitioner herein is working on the post of Patwari. In the meanwhile, on a complaint made against him, FIR No. 08/2020 for offence punishable under Sections 13(1)(b) and 13(2) of Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988 (in short 'the Act of 1988') has been registered against him on 24/02/2020. Thereafter, the Investigating Officer respondent No. 3 sought information from various Banks with regard to the petitioner's and his family members' bank accounts and vide letter/order dated 03/12/2020 (Annexure R/1) directed that the petitioner and his family members be not allowed to make any transaction with the amount deposited prior to 24/02/2020. The petitioner is aggrieved against the said direction and has filed this writ petition seeking mandamus directing the respondents to allow him and his son and daughter to operate their bank accounts as they are in need of money and in absence thereof, they are unable to continue their day-to-day activities. Even otherwise, Sections 102(2) and 102(3) of CrPC and provisions of Sections 17 and 18 of the Act of 1988 have not been complied with, therefore, appropriate direction be issued for defreezing their accounts.

(2.) Return and additional return have been filed by the respondents/State stating inter alia that since offences punishable under Sections 13(1) (b) and 13(2) of the Act of 1988 have been registered against the petitioner, therefore, petitioner's and his son's and daughter's bank accounts have been directed to be freezed and information has been given to the Special Judge (Prevention of Corruption Act), Durg in compliance of Section 102(3) of CrPC on 03/12/2020 (Annexure R/1), as such, there is sufficient compliance of the provisions contained under Sections 102(3) of CrPC and Sections 17 and 18 of the Act of 1988.

(3.) Mr. T.K. Tiwari, learned counsel appearing for the petitioner, would submit that Section 102(3) of CrPC was not complied with till the order dated 04/12/2020 by which this Court directed the State counsel to seek information that on what date the Special Judge (PC Act), Durg has been informed in compliance of 102(3) of CrPC. He would further submit that it is the hard earned money of the petitioner and his son and daughter which has been deposited in their accounts which could not have been seized without making an inquiry under Section 102(1) of CrPC. He would also submit that seizure of the bank accounts would clearly violate the human right of the petitioner and his son and daughter as they are rendered helpless in absence of the money which they have deposited in their accounts, that too, during these hard times of COVID-19 pandemic situation and he would rely upon the decision rendered by the Supreme Court in the matter of Teesta Atul Setalvad v. State of Gujarat , 2018 2 SCC 372 to buttress his submission.