@JUDGMENTTAG-ORDER
Jyoti Saran, J.—Re: I.A. No. 1873 of 2011:
This interlocutory application has been filed for condonation of delay of 17 days in filing the present revision application.
2. Having considered the explanation made in this interlocutory application the prayer is allowed and the delay is condoned.
I.A. No.1873 of 2011 is allowed.
Re: Cr. Rev. No. 1092 of 2011:
3. This criminal revision application is directed against the order dated 8.4.2011 passed by the Additional Sessions Judge-IX, Patna in Special Case No.4 of 2009 arising from RC-01 of 2009, whereby the court below has rejected the application filed on behalf of the petitioner for release of her Savings Bank Account No.040401503510 maintained with the ICICI Bank, Kankarbagh Branch, district-Patna which stands seized by the investigating agency.
4. The prosecution case briefly stated charges this petitioner of being part of a conspiracy in the matter of fake recruitment in the Central Reserve Police Force. The FIR charges some private persons including the petitioner of entering into a conspiracy with public servants for providing illegal appointment to the aspirants through unfair means in return of illegal gratification. It is in this background that the bank account of the petitioner aforementioned was seized and an application filed on her behalf on 4.5.2010 stood rejected by the trial court vide the impugned order dated 8.4.2011, inter alia on the objections raised by the prosecution that the genuineness of the entries as well as the source of funds, was yet to be ascertained.
5. The power of seizure of bank account as a property under section 102 of the Code of Criminal Procedure (hereinafter referred to as ''the Code'') stands affirmed by the judgment of the Supreme Court reported in 1999 Cri. L.J. 4305 (State of Maharashtra v. Tapas Neogy) and I am tempted to reproduce the relevant extract of paragraph 12 in this context:
"12. Having considered the divergent views taken by different High Courts with regard to the power of seizure under Section 102 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, and whether the bank account can be held to be ''property'' within the meaning of the said Section 102(1), we see no justification to give any narrow interpretation to the provisions of the Criminal Procedure Code. It is well known that corruption in public offices has become so rampant that it has become difficult to cope up with the same. Then again the time consumed by the courts in concluding the trials is another factor which should be borne in mind in interpreting the provisions of Section 102 of the Criminal Procedure Code and the underlying object engrafted therein, inasmuch as if there can be no order of seizure of the bank account of the accused then the entire money deposited in a bank which is ultimately held in the trial to be the outcome of the illegal gratification, could be withdrawn by the accused and the Courts would be powerless to get the said money which has any direct link with the commission of the offence committed by the accused as a public officer. We are, therefore, persuaded to take the view that the bank account of the accused or any of his relations is ''property'' within the meaning of Section 102 of the Criminal Procedure Code and a police officer in course of investigation can seize or prohibit the operation of the said account if such assets have direct links with the commission of the offence for which the police officer is investigating into. The contrary view expressed by the Karnataka, Gauhati and Allahabad High Courts, does not represent the correct law. It may also be seen that under the Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988, in the matter of imposition of fine under sub-section (2) of Section 13, the legislatures have provided that the Courts in fixing the amount of fine shall take into consideration the amount or the value of the property which the accused person has obtained by committing the offence or where the conviction is for an offence referred to in clause (e) of sub-section (1) of Section 13, the pecuniary resources or property for which the accused person is unable to account satisfactorily. The interpretation given by us in respect of the power of seizure under Section 102 of the Criminal Procedure Code is in accordance with the intention of the legislature engrafted in Section 16 of the Prevention of Corruption Act referred to above. �� �� �.. ��"
6. As can be seen from the above, the Supreme Court was considering the power of the investigating agency under section 16 of the Prevention of Corruption Act, to seize a bank account in context with the power vested under section 102 of the Code and when the Court proceeded to hold a bank account to be a property within the meaning of section 102 of the Code, fully capable of seizure.
7. The power of investigating agency for effecting seizure of bank accounts having been upheld by the Supreme Court it is now to be seen whether the seizure in the present case is in tune with the pre-requisites for such exercise. The necessary pre-requisites for exercise of power of seizure under section 16 of the Prevention of Corruption Act or section 102 of the Code is that there should be a direct link between the money standing in the account with the alleged offence said to have been committed by the person concerned.
8. The charge-sheet in the present case has been submitted on 30.6.2011 and in so far as the petitioner is concerned, she is charged with maintaining the record of money collected from the sub-agents/agents on behalf of the co-accused Mukesh Kumar for recruitment in the Central Reserve Police Force. She is also charged with maintaining the bank account of co-accused Mukesh Kumar. The documents seized from her residence included note-book containing details of payment, signed and unsigned marked lists of ITI, photo copy of call letters, blank copies of certificates of N.T.C., Samsung mobile etc. Apart therefrom the investigation revealed telephonic conversation between the petitioner and the co-accused Mukesh Kumar regarding payment received and deposited in various bank accounts in the name of co-accused Mukesh Kumar in ICICI Bank, HDFC Bank, SBI accounts etc. which according to the investigating agency, reflects her involvement in the recruitment racket and of managing the ill-gotten money received from the agents/sub-agents.
9. The matter is pending trial before the court below and thus this Court would not express any opinion on the materials collected by the investigating agency on the involvement of the petitioner in the alleged crime but having said that, the relevant aspect in context with the issue raised in the present matter would be whether the involvement of the petitioner simpliciter would be sufficient for the seizure of her bank account or unless there is evidence to show a connection between the money present in the seized bank account and the alleged offence, there is no ground for such seizure.
10. The petitioner has filed the bank statement by way of supplementary affidavit and which reflects that the total amount present in the savings bank account in question was to the tune of about Rs.12,07,119.00 on the date of passing of the impugned order on 8.4.2011 and which increased to Rs.13,49,501.00 as on 30.12.2013 by addition of interest accrued thereon. According to the petitioner, Rs.11,00,000/- had been received by her on account of sale of her Flat No.C/14, situated at Krishna Apartment, Boring Road, S.K. Puri, Patna and in support of her submission, the petitioner has filed a photo copy of the sale-deed which demonstrates that the flat was sold for Rs.12,01,000/- and the purchaser Murari Kumar Khetan made payment of Rs.9,00,000/- through Cheque No.000884 dated 17.4.2009 drawn on the ICICI Bank, Bhagalpur. A sum of Rs.2,00,000/- was paid through Cheque No.101606 also dated 17.4.2009 drawn on the State Bank of India, Anandpuri Branch and balance of Rs.1,01,000/- was paid in cash. The bank details enclosed with the supplementary affidavit filed on 13.2.2014 shows that a sum of Rs.9,00,000/- was credited on 17.4.2009 and was deposited through Cheque No.000884 and a sum of Rs.2,00,000/- was credited on 20.4.2009 which was deposited through Cheque No.101606. The bank account placed at Annexure-2 of the supplementary affidavit also reflects that apart from the said payments a sum of Rs.34,423/- was present in the account on 9.4.2009 and a sum of Rs.3,200/- was deposited on 20.4.2009. Besides the said amount the rest entries in the savings bank account is by way of interest. The petitioner thus has sought to contend that the Savings Bank Account No.040401503510 maintained with the ICICI Bank, Kankarbagh Branch, Patna has no nexus with the alleged offence and that it contains money which is fully accounted for.
11. The investigating agency has responded to the averments of the petitioner as discussed herein above by filing a supplementary counter affidavit which was filed on 11.3.2014 and at paragraph 3 of the supplementary counter affidavit the investigating agency has given the details of the bank accounts, lockers items which were subsequently released by the trial court and although some of the items of the petitioner have also been released but there is no reference to the bank account in question. In fact four bank accounts of the co-accused Mukesh Kumar has also been released under the orders of the trial court.
12. This Court notices that although it has been the consistent stand of the prosecuting agency regarding the involvement of the petitioner in the recruitment racket and it is also their charge that the petitioner was handling the bank accounts maintained in this regard but at no place there is any whisper that the bank account of the petitioner in question, i.e. the Savings Bank Account No.040401503510 maintained with the ICICI Branch, Kankarbagh, district-Patna, was being used in the racket or that any of the ill-gotten money was deposited in the said account.
13. This Court thus while taking note of the allegations set out against this petitioner as also taking into consideration the entries present in the bank statement placed at Annexure-2 of the supplementary affidavit, is constrained to hold that no valid ground would exist for the continued seizure of the bank account in question more particularly in absence of any allegation regarding the involvement of the bank account in question with the alleged crime.
14. In consequence the order impugned dated 8.4.2011 together with the order of seizure, is set aside and the savings bank account of the petitioner bearing Account No.040401503510 maintained with the ICICI Bank, Kankarbagh Branch, district-Patna is directed to be released forthwith.
15. This criminal revision application is allowed.
