RAJAMANI Vs. INSPECTOR OF POLICE

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The petitioner, who is a third party to the proceeding initiated by the first respondent in Cr.No.32/2002 under Sections 465,468,471,420 and 120-B IPC and transferred to the file of the second respondent for investigation, has come forward to file the above criminal original petition on averments such as that he is having multifarious business activities of mining, purchase and sale of minerals under the names and styles of M/s.Abirami Mineralas and Chemicals, M/s.Sekar Mines and Sekar Sales Syndicate Etc. and the respondents 1 and 2, under the pretext of doing investigation in the said case on an alleged confession said to have been made by the prime accused in the said case viz. Prabhakaran that in order to over come certain difficulties, he paid a sum of Rs.16 lakhs to the petitioner, have given instructions to the banks to freeze the accounts of the petitioner, which, the petitioner came to know from the letters dated 14.9.2002 addressed by the Salem Branches of Allahabad Bank and the State Bank of India. The petitioner would further state that he has no business dealings or any connection with the said Prabhakaran and that all his business transactions are covered by cheques and drafts not only keeping the accounts intact but also the tax being paid in the manner required by law.

(2.) The petitioner, further extracting Section 102 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, which empowers the Police Officer to invoke the power to freeze the bank accounts, would submit that the Section empowers the Investigating Officer to seize the property suspected to have been stolen or creates suspicion of the commission of an offence and without these ingredients being specified, the power granted under Section 102 Cr.P.C. cannot be invoked by the Investigating Officer to freeze the bank accounts of the petitioner as the first and second respondents have resorted to; that the allegation that the bank account is a sequel to the discovery of the commission of the offence is illegal and consequently, the direction of the respondents 1 and 2 issued to the banks to freeze the accounts and deposits of the petitioner is equally illegal; that the respondents 1 and 2 have not followed the procedures established by law; that the petitioner's accounts are the business accounts and the direction issued by the respondents 1 and 2 to freeze the same is susceptible to have great impact and serious consequences on his business; that there was no notice to him by the respondents and on such grounds, the petitioner would ultimately pray to the relief extracted supra.

(3.) No counter would be filed on the part of the respondents, but the learned Government Advocate on the criminal side would argue on instructions of the respondents and therefore this Court is left with no option but to decide the above petition in consideration of the facts pleaded, having regard to the materials placed on record and upon hearing the learned counsel for both, in which event it comes to be seen that the petitioner is an independent businessman doing business in mining, purchase and sale of minerals under the names and styles of different companies and that his bank accounts have been ordered to be frozen by the banks concerned including that of some of his family members at the instance of the respondents requiring the banks to freeze the accounts of the petitioner and his companies thus restraining them from operating the accounts consequent to the requisitions made on the part of the first and second respondents vide their letters dated 2.9.2002 and 5.9.2002.