UMASHANKAR RATH Vs. DIRECTOR GENERAL CUM LNSPECTOR

JUDGEMENT

(1.) A short but interesting question that arises for consideration is whether the Director General of Police, Vigilance, Cuttack, has power under Section 102 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 to freeze the accounts of the petitioner and his family members in verious banks while investigating the case under the Prevention of Corruption Act initiatated against the petitioner.

(2.) UNDISPUTED factual position giving rise to the present proceeding may briefly be stated thus: The petitioner is an officer in the rank of Superintending Engineer (Electrical). He has two Savings Bank accounts one in the Syndicate Bank, Balasore and the other in the State Bank of Travancore Nayapali (IRC), Bhubaneswar. His wife Alka Rath and two sons Ansuman Rath and Sanchinshankar Rath have separate Savings Bank accounts in their names in the State Bank of Travancore, Nayapali (IRC), Bhubaneswar and Bank of India, Naya Sarak, Cuttack. Vigilance case has been initiated against the petitioner under the Prevention of Corruption Act on the allegation of acquisition of disproportionate assets to the tune of about ten lacs. On the strength of a search warrant issued by the Chief Judicial Magistrate, Balasore, petitioner's residential houses at Balasore and other places were searched. The Director General of Police, Vigilance, addressed letters to Syndicate Bank Balasore, State Bank of Travancore, Nayapali (IRC), Bhubaneswer and to Bank of India, Naya Sarak, Cuttack (O. Ps. 2 to 4) stating therein that if there are lockers and Savings Bank accounts in the names of the petitioner, his wife and sons, the same may be ceased and withdrawal of any amount may not be allowed.

(3.) COUNTER affidavits are filed on behalf of Director General of Police, Vigilance, Cuttack and Syndicate Bank, Balasore, opp. parties 1 and 3 respectively. It is urged by the opp. party No. 1 that in course of investigation of Vigilance P. S. Case No. 18 dated 8 -4 -1993 under the Prevention of Corruption Act, bank accounts of the petitioner and his family members have been freezed in exercise of power under Section 102, Cr PC.