NEELOFAR ABASS Vs. STATE OF J&K

JUDGEMENT

(1.) Through the medium of this petition, the petitioner, who is serving as a Medical Officer at Public Health Centre near Ompura, Budgam, has impugned the action of the respondent No. 2 and 3 in freezing her salary account bearing No. SB/8456 maintained by her with respondent No. 4 and has prayed for de- freezing the said account.

(2.) Before appreciating the present controversy, it is necessary to have a glance of the factual aspects of the matter.

(3.) The petitioner states that in the month of July, 2020, she found that she was unable to operate her salary account mentioned above with respondent No. 4 and on being approached, the Branch Head of respondent No. 4 informed her about the freezing of her salary account due to FIR No. 2/2020. The petitioner further states that she through her husband got the copy of the FIR (supra) registered with Crime Branch, Kashmir on 04.02.2020 for commission of offences 5(2) of the P.C. Act and 478, 471 and 120-B IPC at the instance of General Administration Department. The petitioner further contends that she in no way is connected to the Jammu and Kashmir Project Construction Corporation(JKPCC) and rather is member of the Health and Medical Gazetted Service so her account could not have been attached by the respondent No. 3. It is further stated that the statement of the accounts maintained by respondent No. 4 in ordinary course of business clearly reflects that the petitioner has opened and been maintaining with the respondent No. 4, the Account No. SB/8456 as salary account and whole of the money credited in the account of the petitioner is the salary drawn and disbursed to her by the Health and Medical Education Department as a consideration of her services rendered as medical officer. It is further contended that as per mandate of section of 102 Cr.P.C. the Police can seize the property only when the property is either the stolen one or is found under the circumstances creating the suspicion of the commission of offence and as the account was the salary account of the petitioner so the same could not have been frozen by respondent Nos. 3 and 4.