Case Note & Summary
The petitioner, Gulam Sarvar s/o Farukh Khan, filed a Criminal Writ Petition before the Bombay High Court, Nagpur Bench, challenging two orders: one passed by the Judicial Magistrate, First Class, Court No.5, Gondia on 18.2.2017, and the other by the Sessions Judge, Gondia on 1st August, 2017 in Criminal Revision No.19/2017. Both orders had rejected the petitioner's application for release of his seized bank account, SB Account No.20190042781, held with Bank of Maharashtra, Branch Goregaon, Distt. Bhandara. The account was seized by the Investigating Officer in Crime No.63/2016 registered for offences punishable under Sections 3 and 7 of the Essential Commodities Act, 1955 read with Section 406 of the Indian Penal Code against the petitioner and other persons. The allegations were that the petitioner, being a godown keeper of a godown at Goregaon where foodgrains for public distribution were stored, in collusion with others, misappropriated 1786.99 quintals of foodgrains. The petitioner claimed that the seized account was his salary account, which was not disputed by the prosecution. The court observed that the seizure of a bank account must be proportionate and should not deprive a person of his livelihood. Since the salary account was not alleged to contain any proceeds of crime, its continued seizure was unjustified. The court allowed the petition, set aside the impugned orders, and directed the release of the bank account to the petitioner. The court also directed the Investigating Officer to complete the investigation expeditiously, preferably within three months.
Headnote
A) Criminal Procedure Code, 1973 - Section 102 - Seizure of Bank Account - Proportionality - The seizure of a bank account must be proportionate to the alleged offence and should not be used to cripple the livelihood of the accused. The court held that the salary account of the petitioner, which was not alleged to contain any proceeds of crime, could not be retained under seizure as it would deprive the petitioner of his right to livelihood under Article 21 of the Constitution. (Paras 7-8) B) Essential Commodities Act, 1955 - Sections 3 and 7 - Misappropriation of Foodgrains - The petitioner was a godown keeper and the allegations pertained to misappropriation of foodgrains. However, the seized bank account was a salary account and not linked to the alleged crime. The court directed the release of the account to the petitioner. (Paras 5-6) C) Indian Penal Code, 1860 - Section 406 - Criminal Breach of Trust - The court noted that the seizure of the salary account was not justified as there was no allegation that the account contained the proceeds of the alleged misappropriation. The court allowed the petition and set aside the orders of the Magistrate and Sessions Judge. (Paras 5-8)
Issue of Consideration
Whether the seizure of a salary bank account, which is not alleged to contain proceeds of crime, can be sustained pending investigation under the Essential Commodities Act, 1955 and Indian Penal Code.
Final Decision
The petition is allowed. The impugned orders dated 18.2.2017 passed by the Judicial Magistrate, First Class, Court No.5, Gondia and dated 1.8.2017 passed by the Sessions Judge, Gondia in Criminal Revision No.19/2017 are quashed and set aside. The seized bank account, SB Account No.20190042781, Bank of Maharashtra, Branch Goregaon, Distt. Bhandara, is directed to be released to the petitioner. The Investigating Officer is directed to complete the investigation expeditiously, preferably within three months.
Law Points
- Seizure of bank account under Section 102 CrPC must be proportionate
- salary account not connected to crime should be released
- right to livelihood under Article 21
