Query
Guest
(Querist) 18 September 2012
This query is : Resolved
CONTRACTS
The petitioner was a teacher and he retired from employment on 31.12.2008. The petitioner received an amount of Rs. 4,69,239 vide A/C Payee cheque dated 28th June, 2009 of the State Bank of India .petitioner invested this money as deposited in the A/C No. 81 of the Ramgarh Branch of the State Bank of India in the following order.
__________________________________________________________________
Date Nature of Investment Date of Maturity Amount Invested __________________________________________________________________
19.7.2010 Fixed Deposit in A/C No. 359. (One year) 19.7.2011 Rs. 1,75,600
24.7.2010 Fixed Deposit In A/C No. 374/96 (One year) 24.7.2011 Rs. 1,50,000
24.4.2010 Fixed Deposit in A/c No. 199/96 (66 months) 24.1.2014 Rs. 1,30,316
23.11.2010 Fixed Deposit in A/c No. 407/95 (72 months) 23.11.2016 Rs. 13323
All the above mentioned bank accounts stand in the name of the petitioner and the money so deposited were his receipt of terminal benefits meant for his maintenance in his retired life.
Ganesh,son of the petitioner was Clerk of the Ramgarh Branch of the State Bank of Maharastra, and along with son also he had a Joint Account in the Bank.The son was involved in some illegal withdrawal of money from the Joint Account and that was detected in the latter part of 2009 and that Joint Account was freezed.
State Bank of India stated that some fraudulent credit entries have been made in petitioners Joint Savings Bank A/c. Moneys so credited have also subsequently been withdrawn from the account. The matter is under detailed scrutiny presently. The State Bank of India further conveyed that it is not possible for bank to effect any payment from the aforesaid State Bank Acc. as well as from his other accounts with them till the investigation is over.
For and on behalf of the State Bank of India, it was stated in that letter that not only the Joint Account will be freezed, but the other accounts also will not be operated till the investigation is over.
The Bank further stated that they are not in a position to restore fund to any account.
When the demand for the payment of money was made by the petitioner but it was not done. Thereafter the petitioner went to the Jharkhand High Court and filed the writ for the relief.
ISSUE
1. Whether on the facts of this case it can be said that the Bank has a lien over the F.D.R and the accounts for the alleged wrong/mischief with regard to joint account with his son for which an investigation is in progress?
2. Whether the writ is maintainable in the present fact of the case?
Any argument from banks side would be worth appreciating.
Sudhir Kumar, Advocate
(Expert) 18 September 2012
Please see section 410 of the IPC
Property, the possession whereof has been transferred by theft, or by extortion, or by robbery, and property which has been criminally misappropriated or in respect of which 1[***] criminal breach of trust has been committed, is designed as "stolen property", 2[whether the transfer has been made, or the misappropriation or breach of trust has been committed, within or without 3[India]]. But, if such property subsequently comes into the possession of a person legally entitled to the possession thereof, it then ceases to be stolen property.
also section 410
Whoever dishonestly receives or retains any stolen property, knowing or having reason to believe the same to be stolen property, shall be punished with imprisonment of either description for a term which may extend to three years, or with fine, or with both.
Please consult your lawyer on the implication of these sections in the given circumstances as the said money has landed in an account held by you jointly.
Since the writ has been filed by you now it may not be appropriate to comment on the maintainability as the matter is now subjudice.
Guest
(Expert) 18 September 2012
You have omitted one very crucial and important thing to mention in your post, whether father or the son is the first operator of the joint account/FDR?
