Justice C. Jayachandran, Kerala High Court
Freezing Of Accused’s Bank Accounts By Police For Offences Under Prevention Of Corruption Act Is Valid: Kerala High Court
|The Kerala High Court was hearing a Writ Petition filed by an accused who was aggrieved by the freezing of her bank accounts.
The Kerala High Court held that freezing of bank accounts of an accused by the Police for the offences under the Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988 (PC Act), is valid.
The Court held thus in a Writ Petition filed by an accused who was aggrieved by the freezing of her bank accounts.
A Single Bench of Justice C. Jayachandran observed, “In view of the authoritative pronouncement of the law on the point in Shento Varghese (supra), this Court is not inclined to grant reliefs sought for, treating the seizure/freezing of accounts as illegal. Instead, I am impelled to follow the course ultimately adopted in Nazeer K.T. (supra).”
The Bench said that the seizure, as such, is not vitiated for that reason, for, if the seizure is vitiated as illegal, then, the article seized in terms of Section 102(1) of the Criminal Procedure Code (CrPC) cannot be propounded as a piece of evidence on the part of the prosecution, during trial.
Advocate N.J. Mathews appeared for the Petitioner. Advocate John S. Ralph was appointed as the Amicus Curiae. Special Public Prosecutor (SPP) Sreelal Warriar and Senior Advocate K. Jaju Babu appeared for the Respondents.
Brief Facts
The Petitioner was the third accused in a crime registered by the Vigilance and Anti-Corruption Bureau (VACB), Central Range, Ernakulam. She was aggrieved by the freezing of her bank accounts pursuant to requests made by the Deputy Superintendent of Police, attached to the VACB. The specific ground raised was the non-adherence to the provisions of the Criminal Law Amendment Act, 1944 to freeze or attach the bank accounts of the accused. It was also urged that recourse to any of the provisions of CrPC is also not made. Another contention raised was that the accounts were freezed without any enabling Orders from a Judicial Authority. The seriousness of the issues involved in this case impelled the High Court to appoint an Amicus Curiae.
Reasoning
The High Court in the above context of the case, noted, “Inasmuch as law is settled by Shento Varghese (supra) that (1) the purpose of reporting the seizure to the Magistrate concerned under Section 102(3) is only confined to the disposal of the said property in terms of Section 457 or Section 459 and (2) the validity of the power exercised under Section 102(1) Cr.P.C is not dependent on compliance of the duty to report under Section 102(3) Cr.P.C., the non-compliance thereof cannot affect the validity, as such, of such seizure, is the opinion of this Court.”
The Court disagreed with the fact that impingement of the Right of Property holder tantamounts to the seizure becoming illegal and vitiated for non-compliance of Section 102(3) CrPC.
“… if the legal position goes to hold that the seizure itself is illegal, the prosecution cannot let in that important piece of evidence, causing serious jeopardy and prejudice, especially when the power under Section 102(1) Cr.P.C. to seize an article is not circumscribed or subjected to the duty to report under Section 102(3) Cr.P.C.”, it further said.
The Court, therefore, held that the challenge against the seizure/freezing of the accused’s account will stand repelled, subject to the following directions to the Investigating Officer –
a) to trace out the document, if any, reporting the seizure to the Special Court concerned in terms of Section 102(3) CrPC and to produce the same before the Court which is seisin of the matter; or
b) to report such seizure to the Special Court within one month from the date of receipt of a copy of the Judgment.
The Court also clarified that it will be open for the Petitioner to file necessary Application as per the relevant provision of the Code, either seeking custody of the property or disposal of the same, which, if filed, will be dealt with in accordance with law by the Special Judge.
Accordingly, the High Court disposed of the Writ Petition.
Cause Title- Sreekala K. v. Central Bureau of Investigation & Ors. (Neutral Citation: 2025:KER:12218)
Appearance:
Petitioner: Advocates N.J. Mathews, Ashik K. Mohamed Ali, Muhammed Rifa P.M., and Ramseena N.
Respondents: Amicus Curiae John S. Ralph, SPP Sreelal Warriar, Senior Advocate K. Jaju Babu, Advocates M.U. Vijayalakshmi, Saijo Hassan, Nagaraj Narayanan, Rafeek V.K., Aathira Sunny, Bincy Job, Neema Neerackal, Ambadi Dinesh L.K., and Salman Faris.