Calcutta High Court (Appellete Side)
Iltush Ahmed Sarkar vs The State Of West Bengal on 17 January, 2025
153 17.1.2025
sb
CRR 2512 of 2019
Iltush Ahmed Sarkar
Vs.
The State of West Bengal
Mr. Prantick Ghosh
Mr. Prasad Bhattacharyya …for the petitioner
Mr. Joydeep Biswas
Ms. Suchismita Dutta …for the State
A report submitted on behalf of the State, signed by S.I of
Police, Nischinda Police Station dated 15.1.2025, is taken on
record.
Being aggrieved by the order dated 1st August, 2019 passed
by the learned Chief Judicial Magistrate, Howrah in G.R. case no.
121 of 2018, the present application has been preferred by the
petitioner. By the order impugned, the court below was pleased to
reject the petitioner’s prayer for de-freezing three accounts, two in
the name of petitioner and the other, in the name of one Mayna
Bibi.
Petitioner submits that the investigating officer under the
pretext of investigation, has freezed the aforesaid bank accounts.
He further submits that the petitioner filed a writ petition being
W.P. no. 1059(W) of 2019 seeking writ of mandamus to revoke the
instruction given by the investigating officer and this court by an
order dated 7.2.2019, was pleased to give liberty to the petitioner
to file appropriate application before the Trial Court seeking
cancellation or lifting the instruction of freezing order. In presence
of such direction, the petitioner filed an application with a prayer
to de-freeze the said accounts and the court below after filing
such application, was pleased to call for a report from the
2
Investigating Officer. Thereafter, on perusal of the report of the
Investigating Officer, the court below was pleased to reject the
petitioner’s prayer by the order impugned.
Being aggrieved by that order, the petitioner’s contention is
that from the confessional statement recorded during
investigation, it appears that there is no reason to freeze the said
accounts. He further contended that elementary rule is that
property sought to be seized or frozen must be either stolen
property or such property is suspicious of the commission of any
offence. In the present case, no circumstances attended upon the
bank account or its operation that led the police to suspect that
any offence was committed in respect of the said account. The
Investigating Officer did not collect single piece of document to
show that the property of the petitioner is stolen or suspicious.
Moreover, the charge-sheet submitted by the Investigating Officer
does not indicate that Section 102(2) of the Code of Criminal
Procedure was complied by the Investigating Officer. He further
contended that the order of freezing the bank account has been
made gross violation of law and the court below disposed of the
application without assigning any reason and as such, the order
is liable to be set aside and the order for de-freezing the bank
accounts may be passed in favour of the petitioner.
The petitioner in this context has relied upon the judgment of
Gulam Sarvar Vs. State of Maharashtra reported in (2018) SCC
Online Bombay 164 and another judgment of R. Chandrasekar
Vs. Inspector of Police, Fair Land Police Station, Salem and
another reported in 2002 (5) CTC 598.
3
Learned counsel for the State submits that sufficient
incriminating materials have been collected by the Investigating
Officer during investigation and he also submits a report before
this court today, in support of his contention that there was
sufficient grounds for freezing the said account.
I have perused the report which discloses that Mayna Bibi is
mother-in-law of the accused, Iltush Ahmed Sarkar and charge-
sheet has already been submitted against the accused. The
accused/petitioner during investigation, confessed before police
that he used the account no. 50160009673680 of Mayna Bibi and
report further discloses that after perusing the bank statement of
the account of Mayna Bibi, it was learnt that there was existence
of huge transaction of the said account and Mayna Bibi failed to
produce the transaction details. In the said report, the
Investigating Officer has also annexed the statement of three
accounts being no. 50160000196553, and 10160003132830 in
the name of petitioner and another account being no.
50160009673680 in the name of Mayna Bibi.
It is no more res integra that the bank account of an accused
person and that of his relative constitute “Property” for the
purpose of Section 102 of Code of Criminal Procedure. Where the
accused person did not offer explanation for the discrepancies in
their bank account and investigating officer is in possession of
materials pointing out circumstances which create suspicion of
the commission of an alleged offence, the investigating officer in
law can legitimately seize the bank accounts after following
procedure laid down in Sub-section (2) & (3) of Section 102. When
the question of custody of suspected stolen property arises, the
4
normal rule is that in case, the accused is discharged or acquitted
after trial, the property would be restored to the person from
whose custody it was taken. In case, the accused is convicted, the
person from whose possession, it was stolen would be entitled to
it’s possession.
The case laws cited by the petitioner in R. Chandrasekar’s
case (supra), it appears that the said case was in connection with
an allegation under Section 465/468/471/420/120 of the Indian
Penal Code but in the present case, it relates to an offence under
Section 379/395/397/412/413/414/120B of the Indian Penal
Code and as such, it is clearly distinguishable. Furthermore, in
the judgment of Gulam Sarvar‘s case (supra), it was clearly held
that learned Public Prosecutor could not show any suspect entries
in the account and moreover, the relevant account was a salary
account of the petitioner. In the present context, there are
sufficient materials in the case diary and also in the absence of
proper explanation from Mayna Bibi, prima facie, a suspension
has been raised by the petitioner in connection with the aforesaid
entries in the account and as such, the said case law relied by the
petitioner is also factually distinguishable with the present case.
In thorough assessment of the facts of the case and the
materials collected during investigation, I do not find that the
order impugned passed by the court below suffers from any
impropriety or perversity which calls for any interference by this
court, invoking jurisdiction under Section 482 of the Code of
Criminal Procedure.
In such view of the matter, the revisional application being
CRR 2512 of 2019 stands dismissed.
5
Urgent Photostat certified copy of this order, duly applied for,
be given to the parties upon compliance of all requisite
formalities.
(Dr. Ajoy Kumar Mukherjee, J.)
[ad_1]
Source link