VINOSKUMAR RAMACHANDRAN VALLUVAR Vs. STATE OF MAHARASHTRA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) A short point of law under Section 102 of the Criminal Procedure Code (Cr.P.C.) is a part of this reference.

(2.) The case of State of Maharashtra vs. Tapas D. Neogy, 1999 7 SCC 685 has settled the law relating to seizure of bank accounts. The bank accounts are held to be property capable of seizure. We are called upon to answer the question under reference as to when the bank account is seized or sought to be seized, whether a notice to the person who is the account-holder, is required to be given before or at the time of such action of seizure.

(3.) The main contention on behalf of the person, whose bank account is seized, is the right of natural justice - the right of being heard and being informed of such an action as an aspect of audi alteram partem doctrine. It is contended that his right of natural justice would be impinged, hampered, restricted and even denied if prior to or at the time of the seizure of the bank account he is not given notice of the action. The main contention on the part of the opponent is that the doctrine of audi alteram partem cannot be extended to a notice at or before seizing of a bank account by a Police Officer as it is a part of an act of an officer during investigation which excludes the procedural requirement of the principle of giving notice as an incident of then account such as to withdraw or transfer its contents completely to thwart the Police action. Hence it is contended that the notice at the time of freezing of the bank account or immediately prior thereto is not required to be given.