LexTEESTA ATUL SETALVAD versus THE STATE OF GUJARAT
Open in Lexace · Ask the AI about this caseJudgment (excerpt)
A B c D E F [2017] 12 S.C.R. 774 TEESTA ATUL SETALVAD v. THE STATE OF GUJARAT (Criminal Appeal No. 1099 of2017) DECEMBER 15,2017 [DIPAK MISRA, CJI AND A. M. KHANWILKAR, JJ.] Code of Criminal Procedure Code, 1973: s.102 - Sweep, purport and applicability of - Prosecution alleged that two Trusts run by the private appellants and other accused actively collected funds as donation in the name of providing legal assistance to the 2002 Gujarat riot victims - Such donations never reached the victims - FIR filed - Investigating agency noticed substantial discrepancies in bank accounts, copies of audited account statements and Balance Sheet of the appellants' trusts - Consequently stated bank accounts were seized by the investigating agency u!s.102 C!'.P.C - Appellant contended that · power u!s.102 could not have been exercised as no material was produced by the investigating authority to support the fact that the proper~l' in question was parted with to indicate the commission of alleged offences - Held: Investigating officer was in possession of materials pointing out circumstances which create suspicion of the commission of an offence, in particular, the one under investigation and he having exercised powers u!s. I02 Cr.P. C, which he could, in latt\ therefore, could legitimate.!Y seize the bank accounts of the appellants after following the procedure prescribed in sub-section. (2) and sub-section(3) of the provision - Indisputably, investigation is still in progress - The suspicion entertained by the investigating agency as to how the appellant appropriated huge fimds will have to be explained by the appellants - However, once the investigation is complete and police report is submitted, it would be open to the G appellants to apply for de-freezing of the bank accounts and persuade the concerned Court that the said bank accounts are no more necessary for the purpose of investigation, as provided in sub-section (3) of s.102 Cr.P.C - Penal Code, 1860 - ss.406, 420 and 120B - Information Technology Act,. 2000 - s. 72A. H 774 TEESTA ATUL SETALVAD v. THE STATE OF GUJARAT 775 s.102 - Procedure of - Prosecution alleged that two Trusts A run by the private appellants and other accused actively collected funds as donation providing legal assistance to the 2002 Gujarat riot victims - Such donations never reached the victims - FIR filed - Investigating agency 11oticed substantial discrepa11cies in bank accounts, copies of audited account statements and Balance Sheet B of the appellants' trusts - Consequently stated bank accounts were seized by the investigating agency u/s.102 Cr.P. C - Appellant contended that !11vestigating officer had not given prior notice to the account holders before freezing the bank accounts - Hetd: The procedure for issuing instructio11 to freeze the bank accounts has been followed in instant case by giving intimation to the concemed C Magistrate as required in terms of s.102 Cr.P.C - There is nothing in s.102 which mandates giving of prior notice to the account holder before the seizure of his bank account. Dismissing the appeals, the Court HELD: 1. The sweep and applicability of Section 102 of the Code of Criminal Proceedure is no more res integra. That question has been directly consittered and answered in the case of State of Jtlaharashtra v. Tapas D. Neogy wherein it was held that "the bank account of the accused or any of his relations is 'property' within the meaning of Section 102 of the Criminal Procedure Code and a police officer in course of investigation can seize or prohibit the op~ration of the said account if such assets have direct links with the commission of the offence for which the police officer is investigating into." After this decision, there is no room to countenance the challenge to the action of seizure of bank account of any pcfson which may be found under circumstances creating suspicion of the commission of any offence. (Paras 14, 15 and 16] [798-F, G; 800-B, DJ D E F 2. In the present case, FIR has been registered at least against three private appellants, naming them as accused. The appellant-CJP Trust has not been named as an accused in the G FIR. But the investigation thus far, according to the respondents, reveals that appellants-Teesta Atul Setalvad and Javed Anand are actively associated with the said Trusts and have carried out transactions which may be found under circumstances suspic
Excerpt shown. Read the full judgment & AI analysis in Lexace.