CASE TITLE:
M/S SJS Gold Pvt. Ltd. Thru. Director Sunil Jaihind Salunkhe And Another Vs State Of UP Thru. Addl. Chief Secy. Home Deptt. Civil Secrtt. Lko And Others
DATE OF ORDER:
1STJUNE,2022
JUDGE(S):
HON’BLE JUSTICES Ramesh Sinha and Saroj Yadav
PARTIES:
PETITIONER:M/S SJS Gold Pvt. Ltd. Thru. Director Sunil Jaihind Salunkhe And Another
RESPONDENT: State Of Up Thru. Addl. Chief Secy. Home Deptt. Civil Secrtt. Lko And Others
IMPORTANT PROVISIONS
Section 102 of CrPC
SUBJECT
The Allahabad High Court has ruled that failure to immediately report the seizure of a bank account (seized by police under Section 102 CrPC) to the magistrate concerned does not render such seizure illegal.
BRIEF FACTS
- The Court was hearing a writ petition filed by M/S SJS Gold Pvt. Ltd. Thru. Director Sunil Jaihind Salunkhe And Another, in which it was claimed that, in response to a FIR, the debit of their bank account was frozen on the Investigating Officer's instructions by Axis Bank.
- The petitioners filed the instant writ petition because they were dissatisfied with the debit freeze imposed on their accounts on the Investigating Officer's orders.
- The petitioners' counsel contended that, under Section 102 (3) of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973, the seizure of a bank account must be immediately reported to the Magistrate with jurisdiction, and that this is a mandatory requirement.
- Against this backdrop, it was argued that in the instant case, the Investigating Officer failed to report the seizure/debit freezing of the petitioners' account to the Magistrate with jurisdiction, and thus the impugned action to freeze the petitioners' debit account was in violation of Section 102 (3) Cr.P.C.
ANALYSIS BY THE COURT
- In the case of Nasiruddin and Others Versus Sita Ram Agarwal; AIR 2003 Supreme Court 1543, the Hon'ble Supreme Court held that it is well settled that the true intention of the legislation must be gleaned from the language used. It is true that the use of the phrase "shall or may" is not determinative in determining whether a statute is directive or mandatory. However, the legislative intent must be deduced from the Act's scheme. It is also well established that when negative words are used, the courts will presume that the legislature intended the provisions to be mandatory in nature.
- The Bench of Justices Ramesh Sinha and Saroj Yadav made this observation after relying on and agreeing with the Allahabad High Court's order in the case of Amit Singh v. State Of U.P. And 3 Others.
CONCLUSION
- Having regard to the aforementioned judgement and order dated 18.04.2022 (supra), as well as the facts and circumstances of the case, this Court concurs with the view expressed by the Co-ordinate Bench of this Court at Allahabad in Criminal Writ Petition No. 11201 of 2021: Amit Singh Vs. State of U.P. and others.
- However, the Court rejected the arguments and dismissed their plea.
Learn the practical aspects of CrPC HERE, CPC HERE, IPC HERE, Evidence Act HERE, Family Laws HERE, DV Act HERE
Click here to download the original copy of the judgement
