Orissa High Court
Nibedita Patel vs State Of Odisha (Vigilance) on 26 April, 2022
IN THE HIGH COURT OF ORISSA AT CUTTACK
CRLMC No.1142 of 2021
Nibedita Patel .... Petitioner
Mr. Manoj Kumar Mohanty, Advocate
-versus-
State of Odisha (Vigilance) .... Opposite Party
Mr. S. K. Das, S.C. for Vigilance Department
CORAM:
JUSTICE A.K.MOHAPATRA
ORDER
26.04.2022
Order No.
04. 1. This matter is taken up through Hybrid Arrangement
(Virtual/Physical Mode).
2. Heard learned counsel for the Petitioner and learned
Standing Counsel for the Vigilance Department.
3. The present application has been filed under Section 482
Cr.P.C. for a direction to the Opposite Party to release the bank
accounts of the Petitioner in the State Bank of India, Jharsuguda
bearing S.B. Account No.30511294225 and S.B. Account
No.43480111500060 of ICICI Bank at Brajarajnagar seized in
connection with Sambalpur Vigilance P.S. Case No.23 of 2020,
corresponding to Vigilance G.R. Case No.17 of 2020 in the file of
learned Special Judge (Vigilance), Sambalpur.
4. It is submitted by learned counsel for the Petitioner that a
case was registered against the father of the Petitioner. Accordingly,
the Vigilance Authority in connection with the allegation has frozen
// 2 //
the bank account of the present Petitioner. It is further contended by
the learned counsel for the Petitioner that present Petitioner is
working as a lecturer in Jharsuguda Women's Aided College and he
has independent source of income. Further, so far the aforesaid
accounts of the Petitioner are concerned, she has no nexus with the
father. It is further submitted that Section 18-A of the Prevention of
Corruption (Amendment) Act, 2018 has not been followed by the
Vigilance Authority while freezing the accounts of the Petitioner.
5. Learned Standing Counsel for the Vigilance Department
submits that the State Bank Account has been defreezed partially
subject to the condition that Petitioner shall maintain minimum
balance of Rs.4,50,791.69 p. in the account, as per Annexure-4 of
the writ petition. He fairly admits that the procedure u/s.18-A of the
P.C.Act has not been followed by the Department. However, he
submits that since investigation is continuing, it would be premature
to say that Petitioner has no connection with her father.
6. Having heard learned counsel for the parties and after
considering the materials placed on record, this Court is of the
considered view that unless there is any specific allegation against
the present Petitioner giving specific details of the bank accounts,
the bank accounts of the Petitioner cannot be frozen, as per the
decision of the Hon'ble Supreme Court. Moreover, the mandatory
procedure of law provided under Section 18-A of the P.C. Act
having not been followed in the present case, learned counsel for the
Petitioner submits that freezing of Petitioner's bank account is bad in
law and in the said context, he relies upon the order of the Supreme
Court in the case of Ratan Babulal Rath vs. The State of Karnataka
// 3 //
(Criminal Appeal No.949 of 2021, disposed of on 06.09.2021),
wherein for non-compliance of Section 18-A of the P.C. Act and
Section 102 of Cr.P.C., the order of the Authority has been set aside
and the Authority has been directed to defreeze the account of the
Appellant therein.
7. In such view of the matter, this Court directs the Authority to
defreeze the bank accounts, i.e. S.B. Account No.30511294225 of
State Bank of India at Jharsuguda and S.B. Account
No.43480111500060 of ICICI Bank at Brajarajnagar, of the
Petitioner forthwith. Further it is open for the Vigilance Authority to
take such recourse in law as may be permissible, as per the judgment
of the Hon'ble Supreme Court cited hereinabove.
8. With the aforesaid direction, the writ petition stands
disposed of.
9. Issue urgent certified copy as per rules.
10. A free copy of this order be supplied to the Standing Counsel
for the Vigilance Department for communication purpose.
(A.K. Mohapatra)
Judge
U.K.Sahoo
