BHARATH OVERSEAS BANK Vs. MINU PUBLICATION

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The two petitions, are by the Bharath Overseas Bank Limited, which is the complainant in TX Cr. No. 790 of 1986, pending investigation with the second respondent, registered against one Ramalingam (hereinafter referred to as accused) who is the husband of Prema Ramalingam, the first respondent in Cri. M.P. No. 8865 of 1987 (hereinafter referred to as the first Respondent and are directed against the orders passed under S. 451, Cri. P.C. by the Additional Chief Metropolitan Magistrate, Egmore. Madras, in M.P. Nos.184 of 1987 and 208 of 1987, respectively holding the second respondents seizure of the amounts in the accounts of the accused and the first respondent in the petitioner Bank as illegal, and directing the release of the amou nts.

(2.) Facts briefly are On a complaint by the petitioner to the second respondent, alleging that accused Ramalingam, who was employed as an Officer in the petitioner Bank, had fraudulently collected large some of money from the branches of the Bank at George Town and Thiyagaraya Nagar, through accounts opened in the naesm of the fictitious persons, by forging credit advices and other bank records, a case in Cr. No. 790 of 1986 for offence under Ss. 467, 468, 471 and 420, I.P.C. was registered. During investigation accused Ramalingam when examined gave details of the transactions carried on by him. Investigation revealed that the accused had opened accounts in the different branches of the Bank, in the names of fictitious persons, had forged credit advices and other documents and collected large sums of money from the Bank. To deploy the funds so collected, the accused had opened several accounts in the names of himself and his family members in Banks and other institutions. These monies totalling Rs. 5,70,000 routed though different Banks, were ultimately paid to .the accused, who deposited the same in the accounts opened by him in his name and in the names of his family members. The second respondent, therefore, issued instructions to the bank not to Permit the accused and his family members to operate these accounts. The amounts, in the above accounts, were freezed.

(3.) The accused and his wife, the first respondent filed applications under S. 451, Cri. P.C. before the trial court, for releasing the funds and for directing the Bank Authorities to permit them to operate their accounts. In both the petitions, the learned Magistrate, holding that under the Cri. P.C. the police have no right to issue such prohibitory orders regarding bank balance, directed their release. Aggrieved with the above orders, the petitioner has filed the present applications under S. 482, Cri. P.C. to have the orders of the Magistrate, set aside.