B RANGANATHAN Vs. STATE

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This Criminal Original Petition is filed by the petitioner praying to set side the order passed by the first respondent to freeze the accounts of not only the petitioner but also his family members held with the second and third respondents, pending investigation in Cr.No.13/2002 on averments such as that the petitioner is arrayed as an accused in the above crime number for the alleged offence punishable under Section 13(2) r/w.13(1)(e) of the Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988 which is pending investigation with the first respondent; that the petitioner is a Member of the Tamil Nadu Legislative Assembly elected from the Purasawalkam Assembly Constituency on behalf of the Tamil Maanila Congress Jana Nayaga Peravai; that the case has been foisted against him at the instance of the ruling party due to political animosity; that the first respondent conducted several raids at his house and business premises but was unable to unearth anything; that in such circumstances, with an ulterior motive to cripple the petitioner financially, the first respondent passed the impugned order, served on the petitioner on 10.2.2003 to freeze the bank accounts operated by the petitioner in his name and by the blood relatives and his business accounts; that he is running several businesses and is operating bank accounts in the Indian Overseas Bank, Periyar Nagar Branch and in Allahabad Bank, Jawahar Nagar Branch, Chennai-82.

(2.) The petitioner would give a list of those accounts sought to be frozen by the first respondent, which are as follows:

(3.) The petitioner would further submit that if all these bank accounts are frozen, he would not be able to disburse weekly wages to his employees besides being crippled from running his day-to-day life and the business since all his monetary transactions are routed through these banks; that the action of the first respondent to freeze the bank accounts held by the petitioner and his blood relatives is mala fide and arbitrary; that the first respondent seeks to freeze these bank accounts under Section 102(1) Cr.P.C., for which he has no authority; that even though authorisation is issued to the first respondent under Sections 17 and 18 of the Prevention of Corruption Act by the Superintendent of Police to conduct investigation, there is no authorisation for him to freeze the bank accounts and therefore the first respondent has clearly exceeded his authority in freezing the bank accounts of the petitioner and in the above circumstances, being left with no alternative remedy, the petitioner would state that he has approached this Court to invoke its inherent jurisdiction under Section 482 of the Cr.P.C. and to set aside the order passed by the first respondent extracted supra.