BABU VARGHESE Vs. DEPUTY SUPERINTENDENT OF POLICE KOTTAYAM

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This Crl.M.C, is filed by the accused in Crime No. 154/97 registered by the Manarcadu Police to set aside the proceedings taken by the investigating officer for freezing the accounts maintained by the accused petitioner as per Annexures C to G and to allow the petitioner's company to operate the accounts in the normal course of business with all the banks in which the company has got deposit and to direct the 2nd respondent to return all the books of accounts, computers and other documents seized from the office of the company so as to enable the petitioner to carry on the business of the company without any let or hindrance, under S.482 of the Cr.P.C.

(2.) Crime No. 154/97 is registered by the Manarcadu Police against M/s. Prizindia Ltd., a public Ltd. company of which the petitioner is the chairman and Managing Director alleging offence punishable under S.420 of the IPC on the basis of the complaint filed by Johnykutty K. Joseph. During the course of the investigation the investigating officer found that the petitioner had collected large amounts from various depositors promising to invest the amount very lucratively and cheated them. The investigating officer also found that large amounts so collected by the petitioner were deposited in various banks. Therefore, the investigating officer issued notices to the different banks in which the petitioner had deposited the amounts, under S.102 of the Cr.P.C, directing the banks to freeze the operation of the accounts of the petitioner with the bank. The investigating officer also seized several documents from the Head Office and different branches of the petitioner's company. The petitioner has filed this petition under S.482 of the Cr.P.C. seeking to quash the notices issued by the investigating officer under S.102 of the Cr.P.C, to various banks freezing the accounts, alleging that those notices are illegal and beyond the competence of the investigating officer, which is not permitted under the provisions of S.102 of the Cr.P.C. and also for return of the documents in order to enable the petitioner to conduct the business without any let or hindrance.

(3.) The counsel for the petitioner and the Public Prosecutor were heard,