V.V. KUTTIMALU AMMA Vs. STATE OF KERALA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The petitioner, a senior citizen, is maintaining an account with the Kannur District Co-operative Society Ltd. She had deposited in the said bank a total sum of Rs.20 lakhs by way of two fixed deposits of Rs 10 Lakhs each on 19.2.2018. The deposits were due to mature in 181 days. On 1.9.2020, the petitioner approached the Bank and demanded that one of the fixed deposits be closed and a sum of Rs.10 Lakhs be transferred to a savings bank account. However, she was informed by the Secretary that her bank account has been seized on orders of the Sub Inspector of Police, Kannur Town Police in connection with Crime No.1214/19 registered against her son under Sections 409 and 420 of the I.P.C. The said order is under challenge in this petition. She also seeks for a direction to the bank to act upon her representation and transfer the amount in one of the fixed deposits to a savings bank account, essentially on the ground that the amount lying in her account has no direct nexus with the acts committed by her son.

(2.) It is the case of the petitioner that she had obtained an item of property on the strength of the family partition deed and the same was sold by her to a certain Preeshma Vivek for a total consideration of Rs.20 lakhs on 12.2.2018. This fact is evident from Exhibit P1. On receipt of the said amount, she deposited the same in the 3rd respondent Bank by splitting the same into two fixed deposits of Rs.10 lakhs. The fixed deposits matured on 19.8.2018. She states that as per the communication issued to the bank by the Sub Inspector of Police, her son, while he was working as a sales man in the bank misappropriated a sum of about Rs.12,15,413/ and thereby cheated the bank. The petitioner states that the money deposited by the petitioner being the sale consideration of the properties assigned by her and the same having been deposited even prior to the alleged misappropriation of the amounts by her son, the seizure of her bank account is illegal. According to the petitioner, the account was seized merely on surmises and conjectures and not on the basis of any tangible materials.

(3.) In the statement filed by the 2nd respondent it is stated that the son of the petitioner was an employee of the society since 2.3.2018 and while holding complete charge of the sale and distribution of LPG cylinders, manipulated the records and misappropriated a total sum of Rs.13,57,896/- during the period from 1.4.2018 to 31.3.2019 during the financial year 2018 ? 2019 and from 1.4.2019 to 16.11.2019 during the financial year 2019 -2020. According to the respondent, for the purpose of Section 102 of the Code, the bank accounts or postal account of the accused or any of his relatives would be a "property" and the investigating officer is well empowered to seize any amount or account or to prohibit its operation.