CHANDRASHEKAR RAMPRAKASH AGARWAL Vs. STATE OF MAHARASHTRA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) RULE . All these matters are connected and, therefore, this order will govern their disposal. However, petition No.172 of 1997 is slightly on different footing and, therefore, the final order disposing of the same will be passed separately. The main question involved is regarding the power of the police officer investigating an offence to issue prohibitory order in respect of bank account. Claim is laid upon the provisions of S.102 Cr.P.C. in that behalf. Certain other provisions are also relied upon and, in particular, S.105A to G in Chapter VIIA, Cr.P.C. as amended by amending Act 40 of 1993. In order to appreciate the point involved in these petitions, a brief reference to the facts in each petition would be necessary.

(2.) WRIT Petition No.86 of 1997 The petitioner herein is alleged to have committed offences under Ss.465, 467, 468, 471, 419 and 420 IPC. The case is registered as CR No.589 of 1996 by Cuffe Parade Police Station, Mumbai. The petitioner represented and posed himself as Chief Controller of Stores and Purchases of Government Department and thereby cheated one Arun Rawat and one other, Purshottam Kukreja. First Information in that behalf has been lodged by Purshottam Tikamdas Kukreja in Cuffe Parade Police Station. The first informant, Purshottam Kukreja is doing the business of printing in the name and style of Kukreja Art. So also Arun Rawat is dealing in printing business having his own printing press at Shah & Nahar Industrial Estate, Lower Parel, Mumbai. An advertisement was published in newspapers inviting tenders in respect of a printing job purporting to be invited by Chief Controller of Stores and Purchases. As such, the informant approached the petitioner, Chandrashekar Agarwal who represented that the informant should fill up the tender and pay earnest money. Then he went on assuring the informant that his tender would be accepted. At one time the petitioner told the informant that if any friend of his required a job of printing, he could also be brought to him and the petitioner would see that his tender for the job is accepted. Accordingly, Arun Rawat was introduced to the petitioner by the informant and he was asked to fill in the tender for IGOU book printing. In that connection, Arun Rawat also paid various amounts by pay orders and cash. For all such payments, the petitioner passed receipts. When the informant and Arun Rawat often visited the house and enquired about the tenders the petitioner started giving indifferent replies and avoided them. That is how both of them approached Free Press Journal office where they found that there is no such office as Central Accounts Department of CGPW. As such, the informant and Arun Rawat found that the petitioner cheated them and gave bogus and forged cash receipts and made false assurances regarding tender for printing. That is how the informant came to be cheated to the extent of Rs.5,85,600/- and Arun Rawat was cheated to the extent of Rs.5,50,000/-. That is how the petitioner is alleged to have swallowed the amount of Rs.11,35,600/-.

(3.) THEREAFTER an application came to be filed before the Additional Chief Metropolitan Magistrate, 37th court, Esplanade, Mumbai on 23.12.1996 by Senior Inspector of Police, Cuffe Parade Police Station, Mumbai praying therein that the cash amount of Rs.7,68,871/- standing in the account of the petitioner in City Bank may be directed to be deposited and handed over to police. In this application, necessary details of the amounts paid by informant Purshottam Kukreja and Arun Rawat to the petitioner have been given; so also the details as to when the amounts came to be credited in the account of the petitioner in City Bank at Mumbai and Delhi branch. The learned Magistrate issued notice to the petitioner and the Manager of City Bank, Mumbai. The latter filed his say (Exhibit-D) to the petition explaining how an amount of Rs.1,33,981/- has been debited to the account of the petitioner on 18.12.1996 itself towards the user of city card facility by the petitioner. Respondent No.2 offered to hand over the balance amount as per the direction of the court.