Introduction

The rampant rise of white-collar crimes and financial offences is
ubiquitous and sometimes cited as a gnawing menace to India’s
financial pursuits. This development has led to formidable coverage and
legislative response by the Central and State governments, aimed toward
equipping numerous investigating authorities together with the Police
with a large amplitude of powers to successfully examine and
prosecute offences pertaining to complicated monetary transactions.
However, there has additionally been a steep escalation in cases of
abuse and misuse of investigating powers by such authorities usually
resulting in harsh ramifications for ostensible harmless events as
properly as accused individuals.

Freezing of financial institution accounts by investigating authorities in a
mechanical trend is an growing drawback confronted by Indian
companies and corporations. Such actions are routinely predicated on
mere allegations or suspicions of tainted quantities being credited by
accused individuals or suspects concerned in doubtful monetary dealings
into the enterprise or private accounts of a bonafide
social gathering. One doesn’t have to be an accused within the offence and even
named within the First Information Report for the accounts to be frozen
throughout investigation. This could have a crippling impact on the
operational features of a enterprise and may trigger grave monetary
hardships and a celebration bearing the brunt of such actions, usually get
into deep waters. In this piece, we search to delineate the statutory
procedural safeguards and authorized place on this problem and expound
on the authorized treatments out there to an aggrieved social gathering in circumstances of
arbitrary freezing of financial institution accounts.

Ambit of Power of Investigating Authorities

To perceive the scope of powers that the investigating
authorities possess to freeze a checking account, one must dive
into the supply of the ability itself. This supply will be traced to
Section 102 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973
(‘CrPC‘).

The objective of Section 102 of the CrPC is to safe the property
which has been or suspected to be stolen or which has a direct
nexus with the fee of against the law from being ‘disposed
of’ or ‘destroyed’. Such a measure of seizing property
together with freezing of financial institution accounts ensures that the court docket is in a position
to get again the property involved. Section 102 of the CrPC falls
beneath Chapter VII which offers with the ‘Processes to Compel the
Production of Things’. The provision states:

Power of police officer to grab sure
property.-

(1) Any police officer could seize any property which can be
alleged or suspected to have been stolen, or which can be discovered
beneath circumstances which create suspicion of the fee of any
offence.

(2) Such police officer, if subordinate to the officer in
cost of a police station, shall forthwith report the seizure to
that officer.

(3) Every police officer appearing beneath sub-section (1) shall
forthwith report the seizure to the Magistrate having jurisdiction
and the place the property seized is such that it can’t be
conveniently transported to the Court, or the place there’s issue
in securing correct lodging for the custody of such property,
or the place the continued retention of the property in police custody
is probably not thought-about mandatory for the aim of investigation,
he could give custody thereof to any particular person on his executing a bond
enterprise to provide the property earlier than the Court as and when
required and to offer impact to the additional orders of the Court as
to the disposal of the identical:

Provided that the place the property seized beneath sub-section
(1) is topic to speedy and pure decay and if the particular person
entitled to the possession of such property is unknown or absent
and the worth of such property is lower than 5 hundred rupees, it
could forthwith be offered by public sale beneath the orders of the
Superintendent of Police and the provisions of sections 457 and 458
shall, as practically as could also be practicable, apply to the web proceeds
of such sale.

On an evaluation of Section 102 of the CrPC and its associated
judicial pronouncements, the next broad necessities emerge:

The seizure should be of a ‘property’ as supposed for
the needs of Section 102 of the CrPC.

A naked studying of the availability would lead one to consider {that a}
police officer has the ability to grab ‘any property’.
However, it was clarified by the Supreme Court in Nevada
Properties Private Limited vs. State of Maharashtra and Ors.¹ that
the phrase ‘any property‘ referred in Section 102
of the CrPC will solely cowl moveable property and excludes
immovable property. The use of the phrases equivalent to ‘seize’
and ‘produce’ as included within the provision point out that
the phrase ‘any property’ as used beneath Section 102 of the
CrPC will apply solely to moveable property.

When contemplating the difficulty of whether or not ‘financial institution accounts’
fall inside the scope of Section 102 of the CrPC, it was held by
the Supreme Court in State of Maharashtra vs. Tapas D.
Neogy,² that even financial institution accounts fall
inside the phrase ‘any property‘ beneath Section 102
of the CrPC and will due to this fact be frozen by the investigating
authorities, if discovered to have direct hyperlinks with the fee of
an offence.

The property will need to have a reference to the fee of a
crime.

For the aim of Section 102 of the CrPC, the property should be
both:

• Alleged or suspected to have been stolen; or




• Have a nexus between the property and the fee of the
  crime; or

Therefore, investigating authorities can solely freeze financial institution
accounts if the deposit within the account is stolen cash or the
account is linked with an alleged offence which is beneath
investigation.

Further, to invoke Section 102 of the CrPC, notably to
freeze a checking account, there should be an inexpensive suspicion of the
involvement of the checking account with the fee of against the law. It
will likely be upon the investigating authority to fulfill that there
exists adequate materials to indicate that the quantity within the financial institution
account is linked with the alleged offence.³ The property should
not solely have a detailed hyperlink to the alleged crime however the officer
will need to have affordable grounds to consider such a nexus exists.⁴ The
High Court of Bombay in Gulam Sarvar vs. State of Maharashtra
and Ors.⁵ on this context held that the:

“Making of an allegation simplicitor; for the needs
of Section 102 of Cr.P.C., will not be adequate and it should be proven
that the allegation is based on such a fabric as to not less than
create an inexpensive suspension concerning the quantity within the account
having some connection or chance of getting some connection
with the fee of crime.“

The Court within the matter additionally noticed that there ought to be
prima facie proof to point that there are entries in
the checking account which will be linked to the fee, consequence
or proceeds of against the law.

The discovery of the offence ought to be a sequel to the
discovery of that property and never the opposite manner round.

Section 102 of the CrPC is claimed to not apply except the
discovery of the property by an investigating authority results in a
suspicion of an offence having been dedicated. This equally applies
to deposits made in a checking account and, it can’t be frozen on the
grounds that the deposits made in it had been traced from a
linked crime. If the invention of the account doesn’t create a
suspicion of against the law having been dedicated, no seizure of the
account will be made.⁶ The High Court of Madras within the
case of R. Chandrasekar vs. Inspector of Police, Fair Land
Police Station Salem and Ors.⁷ had noticed that:

“There are not any circumstances attendant upon the financial institution
account or its operation which have led the police to suspect that
some offence has been dedicated someplace. The allegation of the
prosecution is that the checking account on this case is a sequel to
the invention of the fee of the offence. This will not be
adequate to draw Section 102 of Cr.P.C. because it can’t be since
that the checking account has been traced or found in circumstance
which have made the police conscious of the fee of an
offence.“

Interestingly, the High Court of Allahabad whereas referring to
the Supreme Court’s choice in Tapas D. Neogy (supra)
rejected the argument that the invention of the property should
precede the offence.⁸ The Court held that:

“.the proposition that powers beneath Section 102 of the
Code, are to be exercised solely when discovery of a property leads
to suspicion of a fee of an offence, doesn’t symbolize the
right assertion of legislation in view of Neogy (supra), whereby it has
been held that if the property seized has hyperlinks with fee of
an offence beneath investigation, energy beneath Section 102 of the Code
will be exercised.“

However, within the Supreme Court’s judgment in Nevada
Properties (supra), the Court whereas referring to the
choices of the High Court of Delhi⁹ clearly noticed that Section 102
of the CrPC “wouldn’t be attracted the place the property has
not been traced or found which ends up in a suspicion of an
offence having been dedicated. Discovery of property ought to precede
the detection of crime.”

Freezing of the checking account should be ‘forthwith’
reported to the involved Magistrate.

The most frequently contravened situation beneath Section 102 of the
CrPC is the requirement to apprise the Magistrate of the seizure of
the property. Section 102(3) of the CrPC clearly mandates that
“each police officer appearing beneath sub-section (1)
shall forthwith report the seizure to the Magistrate having
jurisdiction”. The violation of this necessary situation
is what usually permits the courts to direct the de-freezing of financial institution
accounts.

The High Court of Delhi in Muktaben M. Mashru vs. State of
NCT of Delhi and Ors.¹⁰ held that:

“.the reporting of the freezing of financial institution accounts is
“mandatory”. Failure to take action, other than different
situations, will vitiate the freezing of checking account, which ought to
be ‘forthwith’ reported to the involved Magistrate and
non-compliance of this necessary requirement goes to the foundation of
the matter. If there’s any violation in following the procedures
beneath Section 102 of the Cr.P.C., the freezing of the financial institution accounts
can’t be legally sustained.“

Similar place has been articulated by the assorted High Courts
in India.¹¹ A query that nonetheless arises
is tips on how to interpret the phrase ‘forthwith’ as used within the
provision. For this, the High Court of Madras threw gentle on the
problem by stating that the requirement of ‘forthwith’
reporting the seizure to imply ‘instantly’, ‘with out
delay’, ‘quickly’.¹² Therefore, it’s a necessary
requirement for the investigating authority to report back to the
Magistrate of the seizure beneath Section 102 of the CrPC on the
earliest.

In addition to the above, courts have additionally touched upon as to
how the availability should be interpreted in addition to utilized. The
Supreme Court had clarified that whereas deciphering Section 102 of
the CrPC, the underlying object behind it needs to be stored in thoughts
and that the availability can’t be given a slim interpretation,¹³
giving flexibility to the investigating authorities. However, such
a view has supplied a wider scope of misuse permitting investigating
authorities to harass harmless third events by freezing their financial institution
accounts on the slightest of doubts as to its reference to any
alleged offense. In Teesta Atul Setalvad and Ors. vs. The State
of Gujarat and Ors.,¹⁴ the Supreme Court did search to
tackle the priority by stating that the ability beneath Section 102 of
the CrPC is to be exercised cautiously and never be prolonged to
irrelevant issues. Even the High Court of Madras in B. Kavitha
vs. The Inspector of Police¹⁵ emphasised that such discretion
of the investing authorities, particularly whereas freezing financial institution
accounts, should be undertaken solely in uncommon circumstances.

Interplay between Section 102 of the CrPC and Prevention
of Money-Laundering Act, 2002 (‘PMLA’)

It was pointed by the Supreme Court that the legislature by
together with the phrases ‘any property’ and ‘any
offence’ beneath Section 102 of the CrPC had given the availability
a large scope.¹⁶ The applicability of the
provision was held to be broad sufficient to cowl offences created
beneath any statute. However, a pertinent query arises whether or not
even the officers appearing beneath the PMLA can seize property or
freeze financial institution accounts by way of Section 102 of the CrPC?

There have been conflicting views on the appliance of Section
102 of the CrPC by way of the PMLA.¹⁷ However, the current choice of
the Supreme Court in Opto Circuit India Ltd. vs. Axis Bank and
Ors¹⁸ noticed that the PMLA is a
standalone enactment which comprises a provision for seizure
together with the freezing of accounts. As such, the ability and
process for seizure supplied beneath the PMLA needs to be complied
with. The Court held that when an influence is supplied beneath a particular
enactment such because the PMLA, resorting to the ability beneath the
common legislation such because the CrPC doesn’t come up. Moreover, the scheme
beneath each the statutes are totally different as properly.

It has additionally been held by the High Court of Delhi that the
necessities of Section 17 of the PMLA which pertains to ‘search
and seizure’ should be strictly complied with and recourse can not
be taken to Section 102 of the CrPC.¹⁹

Freezing of third social gathering financial institution accounts

An anomalous state of affairs emerges the place financial institution accounts of a celebration
who’s neither an accused nor a named social gathering within the criticism are
frozen by the investigating authorities. This problem was raised
earlier than the High Court of Bombay as to “whether or not Bank
account of petitioners, who will not be accused in any crime will be
freezed sic by the Investigating Agency, beneath Section 102 of the
Criminal Procedure Code?“²⁰ In this matter nonetheless, the
Court was not satisfied of the justifications given as to why the
quantities had been deposited within the checking account of the Petitioner nor
was the Petitioner capable of showcase proof on the utilisation of
the cash of their enterprise. As such, the Court upheld the freezing
of the financial institution accounts observing that the quantities earned by the
accused have been discovered parked within the checking account of the
Petitioner. However, the Court additionally pointed that given the pendency
of the investigation, a conclusive discovering on this regard can’t be
recorded.

The view of the High Court was additionally mirrored thereafter within the
Supreme Court choice in Teesta Atul Setalvad (supra)
the place it was famous by the Court that “the checking account
needn’t be solely of the Accused however it may be any account creating
suspicion concerning the fee of an offence.”²¹
High Courts have furthered this place by stating that the there
needs to be a ‘robust’ suspicion for such financial institution
accounts of third events to be frozen²² and the
discretion needs to be invoked with the ‘utmost
restraint‘.²³

The High Court of Madras in an identical matter was approached by a
Petitioner who was a 3rd social gathering to the felony proceedings
initiated by the police authorities. The Court discovered that there was
no nexus or relevance of the freezing of the checking account to the
investigation of the offence registered towards the precise
accused.²⁴ The Court noticed within the matter
that “the authorities will not be alleged to provoke such
drastic steps to impair the enterprise of anybody who will not be an
accused within the case ordering to freeze the Bank Accounts or
obstructing such individuals from working their
accounts.“

A unique method was taken by the High Court of Telengana in
Hajji Mohammed Sattar vs. State of Telangana ACB²⁵
the place it thought-about the truth that not solely is the Petitioner a
third social gathering to the crime but additionally the assertion of the checking account
was already secured by the authorities. Therefore, on condition that the
assertion of checking account was already secured, the Court held that
the offence (if any) could possibly be proved from the entries made within the
checking account. Since no different incriminating proof was discovered by
the investigating authority even after freezing the account, the
Court discovered no motive to maintain the accounts frozen. The same
remark had additionally been made by the High Court of Madras stating
that the alleged switch of cash into the Petitioner’s financial institution
account will be “verified at any time by a comparability
between the accounts because the entries within the accounts are at all times
out there as such no objective appears to be served by proscribing the
operation of the checking account.“²⁶

In one other writ petition earlier than the High Court of Kerala,²⁷
the de-freezing of the checking account of a charitable Society was
sought. The Court noticed that the Society was not an accused in
the alleged crime and that the accounts had been being maintained for
the welfare of the members. Given that the accounts had no direct
nexus with the offence, the Court held that the freezing of the
accounts will adversely have an effect on the pursuits of the members of the
Society.

In the identical vein, courts have additionally thought-about the affect of
freezing of financial institution accounts on the rights of individuals. As mentioned
above, freezing of financial institution accounts is just to be undertaken in uncommon
circumstances that too with utmost restraint and in compliance with the
provision of Section 102 of the CrPC. In B. Kavitha vs. The
Inspector of Police, the High Court of Madras whereas directing
the de-freezing of an account pointed that the investigating
authorities had not solely didn’t adjust to the mandate of
Section 102 however had additionally frozen the financial institution accounts with out even
registering an FIR, displaying the hastiness of the officers’
actions.²⁸ The Court additionally thought-about that
the mentioned financial institution accounts had been getting used to repay the
Petitioner’s mortgage quantities. As such, the Court discovered the actions
of the investigating authority as violative of the Petitioner’s
elementary proper beneath Article 21 of the Constitution. Similarly,
the freezing of financial institution accounts is such a drastic measure that it
impacts the fitting to privateness and popularity of the account
holder.²⁹ The investigating authorities
can not act in an arbitrary trend and freeze financial institution accounts and even
maintain the accounts frozen indefinitely. Such actions will clearly
quantity to violating the constitutional and authorized rights of the
account holder.³⁰

Remedies:

Before the Investigating Authority

By manner of an modification,³¹ Section 102(3) of the CrPC
permits the investigating authority to determine whether or not to return
custody of the seized property if it finds that the continued
retention of the property will not be mandatory for the aim of
investigation however conditioned on the particular person executing a bond
enterprise to provide the property earlier than the Court when
required.

The Supreme Court in Teesta Atul Setalvad (supra)
clarified that:

“at an applicable stage or upon completion of the
investigation, if the Investigating Officer is happy with the
rationalization provided by the Appellants and is of the opinion that
continuance of the seizure of the said financial institution accounts or anybody
of them will not be mandatory, he will likely be properly suggested to problem
instruction in that behalf.“

Before the Magistrate

Though such a method as talked about above exist, events are sometimes
pressured to method the court docket. In this regard, a treatment out there to
the events is to method the involved Magistrate beneath Section
451 or Section 457 of the CrPC. Courts have allowed for de-freezing
of financial institution accounts on the course that the social gathering execute a bond for
the involved quantity earlier than the Magistrate and produce such quantity
in that case directed by the Magistrate.³² Section 457 of the CrPC empowers
the Magistrate to ship the seized property to the entitled
particular person. Even for de-freezing of a checking account an software beneath
Section 457 of the CrPC is maintainable.³³

Before the High Court

Another treatment invoked by the events is the writ jurisdiction
of the High Courts on the idea of violation of proper to livelihood
beneath Article 21 of the Constitution and/ or the seizure is
arbitrary and therefore violative of Article 14.³⁴ Since writ
jurisdiction is a unprecedented treatment, the Court could reject such
a writ petition on the bottom that an efficient various treatment
within the type of a statutory treatment is on the market beneath Section 451
and 457 of CrPC and decline interference for non-exhaustion of such
treatment.³⁵ High Courts could discover it
applicable to direct the Petitioner to method the Magistrate
beneath Section 451 or 457 of the CrPC, moderately than to listen to the
matter on deserves beneath a writ jurisdiction.³⁶ However, in
Madhu vs. Sub Inspector of Police,³⁷ the Court said
{that a} Petitioner can method the High Court itself “if
the freezing is per se opposite to the provisions of legislation and will
be assailed as unlawful irrespective of factual disputes
concerned within the matter.” This is in keeping with the view
{that a} writ court docket can not enterprise into disputed questions of truth
which a Magistrate can be in a greater place to handle.³⁸
Depending on the circumstances, the court docket can even reject the
request for de-freezing of a checking account whether it is of the view that
such a de-freezing would frustrate the investigation³⁹ or
on the bottom that the investigation will not be but full.⁴⁰

In the case of South Indian Chamber of Commerce and
Industries Members Welfare Charitable Society and Ors. vs. M.C.
Alex and Ors.,⁴¹ the Petitioner who was not an
accused within the crime approached the High Court of Kerala beneath
Article 226 of the Constitution. Though it was argued by the
Respondent that the suitable treatment would lie beneath Section 457
of the CrPC, the Court held that the “writ jurisdiction of
this Court can’t be mentioned to be barred in a case the place a obvious
illegality dedicated by the seizing Officer is alleged and sought
to be substantiated regardless of Section 457 of the Cr.P.C. offering an
alternate treatment in such state of affairs.” Alternatively, an
aggrieved social gathering can also assail the freezing order by taking
recourse to Section 482 of the CrPC and Article 226 of the
Constitution earlier than the jurisdictional High Court.⁴² High Courts have
entertained petitions beneath Section 482 of the CrPC, invoking its
inherent powers for de-freezing financial institution accounts.⁴³

Ambiguous Areas

One pertinent problem is whether or not there’s a requirement of prior
and put up freezing discover to the aggrieved social gathering beneath part 102
CrPC. On many events events are left at the hours of darkness about freezing
actions till they uncover it subsequently, thereby irritating
the suitable remedial measures that will have been availed earlier than
hurt is brought about. The problem relating to the requirement of prior discover
is taken into account to have been settled by the Supreme Court in Teesta
Atul Setalvad (supra), through which it was said that
“there’s nothing in Section 102 which mandates giving of
prior discover to the account holder earlier than the seizure of his financial institution
account.” However, the rivalry with respect to service
of prohibitory order put up freezing and seizure memo stays
out there to aggrieved events as a tenable objection.⁴⁴

Another space which requires additional readability is the character or
extent of ‘suspicion’ that’s required for the
investigation authority to order the freezing of a checking account. In
the choice of Nevada Properties (supra), the Supreme
Court pointed that using the phrase “discovered beneath
circumstances which create suspicion of the fee of any
offence” in Section 102 of the CrPC doesn’t imply the
officers ought to have a “agency opinion or an
adjudication/discovering“. Rather, the Court noticed that
the phrase ‘suspicion’ “is a weaker and a broader
expression than ‘affordable perception’ or
‘satisfaction’.” This due to this fact signifies a
subjective ingredient to the appliance of Section 102 of the CrPC
moderately than having an goal evaluation and investigating
authorities routinely exploit this lacuna. However, courts nonetheless
emphasise on the requirement that the authorities should fulfill
themselves on the idea of the fabric out there to them that
there exists a must freeze the account.⁴⁵ Such necessities
be certain that the investigating authorities don’t act whimsically or
arbitrarily whereas coping with measures as drastic as freezing financial institution
accounts.

Conclusion

The judicial pronouncements analysed above replicate the place
that the financial institution accounts of any particular person, entity or enterprise could also be
frozen even when the account holder had no involvement within the alleged
crime. The tenability of such actions is nonetheless conditioned on
compliance with sure procedural safeguards and the requirement
of ‘reasonableness’. It is an oddly peculiar place to
take that an account holder who enters right into a bonafide and
real transaction with one other social gathering be punished for no fault of
his personal by freezing his financial institution accounts. In most enterprise
transactions and even in an individual’s each day dealings, it’s
not attainable for him to hint and confirm the supply of the opposite
social gathering’s revenue earlier than getting into into every transaction. In such a
state of affairs it turns into extremely unfair to topic these companies or
people to a drastic motion equivalent to freezing of financial institution
accounts.

It would due to this fact be upon the courts to make strict instructions
to the involved authorities on how they need to method an
investigation which directs them to a 3rd social gathering’s financial institution
account. Though the High Court of Madras rightly said that the
freezing of third-party accounts should be finished solely in ‘uncommon
circumstances’ and with ‘utmost restraint’, such a view has not
but been imbibed by investigating authorities, together with the
Police.

Footnotes

1 Nevada
Properties Private Limited vs. State of Maharashtra and Ors.,
AIR2019SC4554; See additionally Indiabulls Commercial Credit Limited vs.
Economic Offences Wing and Ors., 2021 SCC OnLine Del
2906.

2 State
of Maharashtra vs. Tapas D. Neogy, (1999) 7 SCC 685.

3 Ezulix
Software Pvt. Ltd. vs. State of Maharashtra and Ors.,
MANU/MH/1076/2021.

4 Madhu
vs. Sub Inspector of Police, 2020 (5) KHC 35.

5 Gulam
Sarvar vs. State of Maharashtra and Ors., 2018 SCC OnLine Bom
164.

6 Vinod
Kumar Ramachandran Valluvar vs. State of Maharashtra,
MANU/MH/2353/2011.

7 R.
Chandrasekar vs. Inspector of Police, Fair Land Police Station
Salem and Ors., 2002(5)CTC598. See additionally Jignesh Prakash Shah vs.
Central Bureau of Investigation and Ors., 2018(3)BomCR(Cri)81; Also
see M. Adithya Cholan and Ors. vs. The Union of India and Ors.,
2015 SCC OnLine Mad 6729.

8
Suninder Sandha vs. State of U.P. and Ors., MANU/UP/0018/2018. An
SLP was filed towards the judgment of the Allahabad High Court.
However, the Supreme Court didn’t discover any floor to intervene
(SLP (Crl) 1126/2018).

9 Ms.
Swaran Sabharwal vs. Commissioner of Police, 1988 CriLJ 241; Ok.
Parmar and Ors. vs. Union of India and Anr., 1992 CriLJ
2499.

10
Muktaben M. Mashru vs. State of NCT of Delhi and Ors., 265(2019)
DLT 651.

11
Manish Khandelwal and Ors. vs. The State of Maharashtra and Ors.,
2019 SCC OnLine Bom 1412; Uma Maheswari and Ors. vs. The State and
Ors., 2013 SCC OnLine Mad 3829; Ezulix Software Pvt. Ltd. vs. State
of Maharashtra and Ors., MANU/MH/1076/2021; Tmt. T. Subbulakshmi
and Ors. vs. The Commissioner of Police, State,
2013(4)MLJ(Crl)41.

12 Uma
Maheswari and Ors. vs. The State and Ors., 2013 SCC OnLine Mad
3829.

13
State of Maharashtra vs. Tapas D. Neogy., (1999) 7 SCC
685.

14
Teesta Atul Setalvad and Ors. vs. The State of Gujarat and Ors.,
(2018) 2 SCC 372.

15 B.
Kavitha vs. The Inspector of Police, MANU/TN/4197/2019.

16
State of Maharashtra vs. Tapas D. Neogy., (1999) 7 SCC
685.

17
Paresha G. Shah vs. State of Gujarat and
Ors.,2016GLH(1)329.

18
Opto Circuit India Ltd. vs. Axis Bank and Ors.,
AIR2021SC753.

19
Directorate of Enforcement vs. Abdullah Ali Balsharaf and Ors.,
2019 SCC OnLine Del 6428. Also see SLP(C) 28021/2019.

20
Rohan Ashok Jagdale and Ors. vs. The Police Station Officer and
Ors., 2016(4)BomCR(Cri)512.

21 See
additionally Neelofar Abass vs. State of J. and Ok. and Ors., 2020 SCC
OnLine J&Ok 585. The Court relied on the choice in Neogy
(supra) reiterating that the checking account of the accused in addition to
his family can fall inside the scope of Section 102 of the
CrPC.

22
Anuradha Sadashivamurthy vs. State of Karnataka and Ors.,
MANU/KA/5007/2018. See additionally, Prakash Padukone and Ors. vs. State of
Karnataka and Anr. (W.P. No. 13516-13518/2018)
(04.04.2018).

23
Rajamani vs. The Inspector of Police, Shevapet Police Station and
Ors., 2003 SCC OnLine Mad 915.

24
Ibid.

25
Hajji Mohammed Sattar vs. State of Telangana ACB,
MANU/TL/0510/2019.

26 R.
Chandrasekar vs. Inspector of Police, Fair Land Police Station
Salem and Ors., 2002 SCC OnLine Mad 686. See additionally Rakesh P. Sheth
and Ors. vs. The State, 2016 SCC OnLine Mad 25294.

27
South Indian Chamber of Commerce and Industries Members Welfare
Charitable Society and Ors. vs. M.C. Alex and Ors., 2020 SCC OnLine
Ker 16814.

28 B.
Kavitha vs. The Inspector of Police, MANU/TN/4197/2019.

29
Madhu vs. Sub Inspector of Police, 2020 (5) KHC 35.

30
Mohammad Enamul Haque vs. Central Bureau of Investigation, ACB,
Cochin, 2018 SCC OnLine Ker 22772.

31
Inserted by Act 25 of 2005, s.13 (w.e.f. 23-6-2006).

32
Sunita Ajit Gholkar and Ors. vs. State of Maharashtra and Ors.,
MANU/MH/2849/2014; Muktaben M. Mashru vs. State of NCT of Delhi and
Ors., 265 (2019) DLT 651.

33 Ram
Naresh Tiwari vs. State of Chhattisgarh and Ors., 2020 SCC OnLine
Chh 1185; Also see Sanju Nishad vs. State of Chhattisgarh, WP (Cr)
358/2016 (09.05.2017), whereby the Court in respect of the
non-compliance of Section 102(3) held that “Non-reporting the
seizure to the Magistrate having jurisdiction can not take away the
authority of the involved Magistrate to cope with the property in
phrases of Section 457(2) of the CrPC.”

34
Madhu vs. Sub Inspector of Police, 2020 (5) KHC 35; Mohammad Enamul
Haque vs. Central Bureau of Investigation, ACB, Cochin, 2018 SCC
OnLine Ker 22772; IMZ Corporate Private Limited and Ors. vs. State
of Bihar and Ors., 2020 SCC OnLine Pat 2712.

35 AP
Product and Ors. vs. State of Telangana and Ors., 2020 SCC OnLine
TS 1628. Also see Bharath Overseas Bank vs. Minu Publication,
MANU/TN/0478/1988, whereby it was noticed that whereas Section 457
of the CrPC “offers with orders that could possibly be handed with
reference to property, throughout investigation and earlier than the
graduation of any trial or enquiry, S. 451, Crl.P.C, offers with
orders that could possibly be handed for custody and disposal of property,
pending trial or enquiry,“

36 Ram
Naresh Tiwari vs. State of Chhattisgarh and Ors., 2020 SCC OnLine
Chh 1185.

37
Madhu vs. Sub Inspector of Police, 2020 (5) KHC 35. See additionally,
Manish Khandelwal and Ors. vs. The State of Maharashtra and Ors.,
2019 SCC OnLine Bom 1412.

38
Operation Mobilization India and Ors vs. State of Telangana and
Ors. (MANU/TL/0401/2021).

39
Ibid.

40
Teesta Atul Setalvad and Ors. vs. The State of Gujarat and Ors.,
(2018) 2 SCC 372; Neelofar Abass vs. State of J. and Ok. and Ors.,
2020 SCC OnLine J&Ok 585.

41
South Indian Chamber of Commerce and Industries Members Welfare
Charitable Society and Ors. vs. M.C. Alex and Ors., 2020 SCC OnLine
Ker 16814.

42 M.
Adithya Cholan and Ors. vs. The Union of India and Ors., 2015 SCC
OnLine Mad 6729.

43
Rakesh P. Sheth and Ors. vs. The State, 2016 SCC OnLine Mad 25294;
Agrani Export Private Limited vs. State of Orissa, 2008(II)OLR888;
Irshad Ahmad Famda vs. Union Territory of J and Ok and Ors.,
MANU/JK/0402/2020; Ezulix Software Pvt. Ltd. vs. State of
Maharashtra and Ors., MANU/MH/1076/2021. See additionally, Indiabulls
Commercial Credit Limited vs. Economic Offences Wing and Ors., 2021
SCC OnLine Del 2906, whereby the Petitioner filed a petition beneath
Article 226 learn with Section 482 of the CrPC.

44
Neelofar Abass vs. State of J. and Ok. and Ors., 2020 SCC OnLine
J&Ok 585; Muktaben M. Mashru vs. State of NCT of Delhi and Ors.,
265 (2019) DLT 651; Dharani Wines and Ors. vs. The State and Ors.,
MANU/TN/5706/2020; Manish Khandelwal and Ors. vs. The State of
Maharashtra and Ors., 2019 SCC OnLine Bom 1412; Shivanandhan vs.
State and Ors., 2019 SCC OnLine Mad 1154.

45 IMZ
Corporate Private Limited and Ors. vs. State of Bihar and Ors.,
2020 SCC OnLine Pat 2712; Madhu vs. Sub Inspector of Police, 2020
(5) KHC 35; V.V. Kuttimalu Amma vs. State of Kerala and Ors., 2021
(1) KHC 251; South Indian Chamber of Commerce and Industries
Members Welfare Charitable Society and Ors. vs. M.C. Alex and Ors.,
2020 SCC OnLine Ker 16814, the Court said that there should be
supplies supporting affordable suspicion.

Originally Published 20 July 2022

The content material of this text is meant to offer a common
information to the subject material. Specialist recommendation ought to be sought
about your particular circumstances.