The Madras High Court has held that informing the accussed isn't mandated by any statutory provision while freezing the bank accounts.
The single-judge bench of Justice M. Nirmal Kumar while adjudicating upon a plea filed by the wife of controversial PUBG Gamer, Madan seeking defreezing of her bank account noted that Section 102 Cr.P.C. doesn't stipulate issuance of any Notice to the account holder.
The petitioner and her gamer husband were marred with various allegations including misappropriation of funds collected in the name of Covid Relief and making revenue from the live streaming of PUBG gaming videos with obscene commentary and filthy language against women and teenage subscribers.
The case registered against both of them initially was for offences pertaining to Sections 67, 67A of IT Act, Sections 294(b), 509 of IPC and Section 4 of Indecent Representation of Women Act, 1986. But later, covid relief scam came to light and an alteration report was filed and thus Section 420 IPC was also added.
The prime contention in the petition was that the freezing of bank account didn't align with the procedure contemplated under Section 102(3) of Cr.P.C. as seizure report wasn't given to the concerned Magistrate having the jurisdiction. The other was that the petitioners weren't notified about the freezing of bank accounts.
It was further averred that the accounts can't be kept frozen for an idefinite period and the discourse by the Police issuing such prohibitory order could be for a short duration only.
During the hearing, the Court was noted that the Magistrate was informed as per the provision of Section 102(3) of Cr.P.C. when the petitioner was remanded on 16th June.
As far as informing the petitioner was concerned, the Court noted that there is no legal provision for the same.
It referred to Teesta Atul Setalvad Vs. The State of Gujarat, 2017 Latest Caselaw 911 SC in which the court remarked that Section 102 Cr.P.C. does not stipulate issuance of any notice to the account holder.
"Section 102 Cr.P.C. is an important step towards investigation, in view of settled legal position, the accused cannot have any say in the investigation and notice to the suspect is out of question. The intention of the investigating agency is not required to be revealed to suspect at that crucial stage, else message of alert would be received by the suspect creating huge room for manipulation or destruction of evidence."
The Court though noted that it is open for the petitioner to approach the concerned judicial magistrate for defreezing the account by giving satisfactory explanations as it agreed that the account freeze cannot continue indefinitely. The petitioner can show the concerned magistrate that freezing the bank account entirely is not needed for further investigation, the Court said.
Read Judgement Here:
Share this Document :Picture Source :
