- Court: High Court of Jammu & Kashmir and Ladakh
- Citation: Crl R No. 1 / 2022 clubbed with,Crl R No. 2 / 2022
- Case title: Kaiser Ahmad Sheikh &Anr. v. SHO P/S Crime Branch Kashmir clubbed with, Bashir Ahmad War and Anr. v. SHO P/S Crime Branch Kashmir
- Date of Order: April 28, 2022
- Bench: Justice Sanjay Dhar
Parties
Petitioners
- Kaiser Ahmad Sheikh
- Ishrat Ara
- Bashir Ahmad War
- Neelofar Jan
Respondent
- SHO P/S Crime Branch Kashmir
Learn the practical aspects of CrPC HERE, CPC HERE, IPC HERE, Evidence Act HERE, Family Laws HERE, DV Act HERE
SUBJECT
The Petitioners had approached the Hon’ble J&K and Ladakh High Court against the order of the Special Judge, Anticorruption, Kashmir, Srinagar, that had ordered the freezing of the bank accounts of the Petitioners in a corruption case.
IMPORTANT PROVISIONS
Section 102, CrPC – This Section states that any police officer can order the seizure of any property that may have been alleged or suspected to have been stolen. An order of seizure can also be made against aproperty that may havebeen found under circumstances raising suspicion of the commission of an offence.
OVERVIEW
- In the present case, Petitioners No. 1 & 3 were the employees of Jammu & Kashmir Projects Construction Corporation (“JKPCC”). They were charged with the commission of cognizable offences u/s 420, 468, 120 B, RPC and 5 (2) (d), P.C. Act Svt. 2006, for causing a loss of approximately Rs. 73 lakhsto the State Exchequer by showing ‘exorbitant, unsubstantiated and arbitrary rates’ of materials used in JKPCC projects.
- Petitioner No. 2 was the wife of Petitioner No. 1, whereas Petitioner No. 4 was the wife of Petitioner No. 3. During the investigation, suspicious credits were traced in the bank accounts of Petitioners No. 3 & 4. Upon questioning, they were unable to explain the sources of those suspicious credits, so their accounts were debt freezed.
- Similar suspicious credits were also observed in the accounts of Petitioner No. 1 & 2, so their accounts were also freezed as they were also unable to explain the source of those credits.
- Petitioners approached the Special Judge, Anticorruption, Kashmir, Srinagar for defreezing their bank accounts, but their applications were rejected. So, the Petitioner approached the Hon’ble High Court challenging the order of the Special Judge.
ISSUES RAISED
- Whether the bank account of the spouse of a suspect/accused can be freezed during an investigation of a case.
ARGUMENTS ADVANCED BY THE PETITIONERS
- The petitioners argued that they had been deprived of their pension and salary due to the freezing of their bank accounts. It had affected their source of livelihood.
- Furthermore, they submitted that they had explained to the investigating agency, the source of the funds that had been credited to their bank accounts.
- It was contended that Petitioners No. 2 and 4 were not even the employees of JKPCC. So, there was no logic behind freezing their accounts fora case related to JKPCC.
- Relying upon Section 102, CrPC, it was argued that only the property that was alleged or suspected to have been stolen can be seized. In the present case, the money lying in the bank accounts of the petitioners was not stolen property. So, Investigating Agency had no jurisdiction to pass orders for freezing their bank accounts under Section 102, CrPC.
JUDGEMENT ANALYSIS
- The Court observed that upon perusal of Section 102, CrPC, it was clear that during an investigation, the police had the power to seize any property that may have been alleged or suspected to have been stolen.
- There were serious allegations against Petitioners No. 1 & 3,that while they were working as officials in JKPCC, there were irregularities in the allotment of works that resulted in a loss to the State exchequer.
- To adequately investigate such allegations, it was essential for the investigating agency to order a seizure of the accounts of the Petitioners.
- The Hon’ble Court relied upon the judgment of the Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of State of Maharashtrav. Tapas D Neogy [(1999) 7 SCC 685] to observe that the bank account of any of the relations of an accused came within the definition of property u/s 102, CrPC. So, a police officer could order the seizure of such an account if it had a direct link with the commission of the offence.
- In the present case, the investigating agency had already defreezed accounts of some of the relatives of the petitioners after getting satisfactory explanations
- So, the Court observed that adequate time must be granted to the Investigating Agency to allow them to test the veracity of the explanations that had been given by the petitioners regarding the source of credits.
CONCLUSION
After putting forwardthe aforementioned observations, the Hon’ble Jammu & Kashmir and Ladakh High Court dismissed the petitions filed by the petitioners. The Court gave petitioners liberty to approach the Investigating Agency. It also directed the Investigating agency to ‘expeditiously’ look into the explanations given by the petitioners regarding the source of the credits in their bank accounts. The court also noted that the petitionerscould always open new salary/pension accounts so that their livelihoods were not affected.
Learn the practical aspects of CrPC HERE, CPC HERE, IPC HERE, Evidence Act HERE, Family Laws HERE, DV Act HERE
Click hereto download the original copy of the judgment
