# Amit Singh v. State of U.P. & Ors. 1200 INDIAN LAW REPORTS ALLAHABAD SERIES

- **Citation:** (2022) 5 ILRA 1199
- **Court:** High Court of Judicature at Allahabad
- **Decided:** 2022-04-18
- **Bench:** Ashwani Kumar Mishra, Rajnish Kumar
- **Source:** https://unisonlegal.in/judgment/allahabad-high-court/amit-singh-v-state-of-u-p-ors-1200-indian-law-reports-allahabad-series-48459
- **Pages:** 9

## Headnote

Law
-
Constitution
of
India,1950 - Article 300-A - Criminal
Procedure Code,1973 - Sections 102,
120 (2), 451, 452, 457(1) & 457(2) -
Indian Penal Code,1860 - Sections 120B, 420, 467, 468 & 471 - Arms Act,1878
- Section 25(1-B) - Writ petition - against-
seizer order of petitioner's bank account -
plea of the petitioner that while freezing the
bank account the authority violates the
mandatory provisions made U/s 102 of Cr.P.C.
as well as in violation of constitutional right
envisaged U/Article 300-A - Court founds that
freezing of account to be in accordance with
applicable law - with observation that merely
because the freezing of account is not
reported forthwith and reported only on an
application moved by the petitioner cannot be
said that there were infringement of right of
property given under Article 300-A - petition
lack of merit deserves dismissal. (Para - 18,
20, 21, 22)

Writ Petition Dismissed. (E-11)

List of Cases cited:-

## Text

5 All. Amit Singh Vs. State of U.P. & Ors.
1199
under Section 67 can also be initiated
against
the
petitioners
in
such
circumstances would not prohibit the
initiation of proceeding under the Act of
1984 particularly in view of Section 6.

15. The purpose of imposing penalty under
Section 67 of the U.P. Revenue Code is to
recover the damage for the wrongful use of
property whereas the penalty / punishment
stipulated under the Act 1984 is a separate and
distinct offence specified in the Act of 1984. Subsection 3 of Section 67 is extracted herein
below:-

"(3) If the person to whom a notice has
been issued under sub-section (2) fails to show
cause within the time specified in the notice or
within such extended time as the Assistant
Collector may allow in this behalf, or if the
cause shown is found to be insufficient, the
Assistant Collector may direct that such person
shall be evicted from the land, and may, for that
purpose, use or cause to be used such force as
may be necessary, and may direct that the
amount of compensation for damage or 34
misappropriation of the property or for
wrongful occupation, as the case may be, be
recovered from such person as arrears of land
revenue."

16. In the event necessary ingredients to
attract an offence under the Act of 1984 are
made out, the consequences flowing from the
statute can not be curtailed merely because a
distinct course is otherwise stipulated to recover
the damages under the Code of 2006.

17. Argument of learned counsel for
the petitioners based upon Rule 67 (7) that
only where action is taken under Section 67
that the proceedings under Section 447
I.P.C. can commence is based wholly on the
misreading of the provision itself which
reads as under:-

"67.(7) Nothing in sub-rule (5) shall debar
the Land Management Committee or the local
authority as the case may be from prosecuting
the person who encroaches upon the same land
second time in spite of having been evicted
under the Code or the rules, under section 447 of
the Indian Penal Code, 1860."

18. In our opinion the proceedings
under the I.P.C. read with act of 1984 are
independent proceedings which are not
affected or circumscribed in any manner by
the provisions and the proceedings under the
Act of 2006 or the Rules framed pursuant
thereto of the year 2016. In the facts of the
case, it is otherwise noticed that the F.I.R.
contains specific allegations that initially
encroachment by the petitioners was got
stopped but since the petitioners have again
encroached
upon
the
land
therefore
proceedings have been initiated under the Act
of 1984 and the I.P.C.

19. In view of the deliberation
aforesaid, we find that prayer made by the
petitioners to quash the F.I.R. must fail. The
writ petition is, accordingly, dismissed.

20. The authorities shall be at liberty to
proceed with the investigation pursuant to
F.I.R. and conclude it in accordance with law.
----------
(2022)05ILR A1199
ORIGINAL JURISDICTION
CRIMINAL SIDE
DATED: ALLAHABAD 18.04.2022

BEFORE

THE HON'BLE ASHWANI KUMAR MISHRA, J.
THE HON'BLE RAJNISH KUMAR, J.

Criminal Misc. Writ Petition 11201 of 2021

Amit Singh ...Petitioner
Versus
State of U.P. & Ors. ...Respondents
1200 INDIAN LAW REPORTS ALLAHABAD SERIES
Counsel for the Petitioner:
Sri Manish Singh

Counsel for the Respondents:
G.A., Sri Rajesh Dwivedi, Sri Sanjay Kumar
Srivastava

Criminal
Law
-
Constitution
of
India,1950 - Article 300-A - Criminal
Procedure Code,1973 - Sections 102,
120 (2), 451, 452, 457(1) & 457(2) -
Indian Penal Code,1860 - Sections 120B, 420, 467, 468 & 471 - Arms Act,1878
- Section 25(1-B) - Writ petition - against-
seizer order of petitioner's bank account -
plea of the petitioner that while freezing the
bank account the authority violates the
mandatory provisions made U/s 102 of Cr.P.C.
as well as in violation of constitutional right
envisaged U/Article 300-A - Court founds that
freezing of account to be in accordance with
applicable law - with observation that merely
because the freezing of account is not
reported forthwith and reported only on an
application moved by the petitioner cannot be
said that there were infringement of right of
property given under Article 300-A - petition
lack of merit deserves dismissal. (Para - 18,
20, 21, 22)

Writ Petition Dismissed. (E-11)

List of Cases cited:-

1. N.Padmamma & ors. Vs S.Ramkrishna Reddy
& ors. (Civil Appeal No.3632 of 2008 decided on
16.05.2008);

2. D.B.Basnett (D) through LRs. Vs The Collector
East District, Gangtok, Sikkim & anr. (Civil
Appeal No.196 of 2011 decided on 02.03.2020);

3. Bajranga (Dead) by Lrs. Vs St. of M. Pr. & ors.
(Civil Appeal No.6209 of 2010 decided on
19.01.2021),

4. Ms Swaran Sabharwal Vs Commissioner of
Police (1990 (68) Comp Cas 652 Delhi (DB)),

5. Dr.Shashikant D.Karnik Vs The St. of Mah.
(2008 Cri.LJ 148 (D.B.);

6. Muktaben M.Mashru Vs St. of N.C.T. of Delhi
& anr. (Crl M.C. 4206 / 2018) Decided on
29.11.2019);

7. Smt. T. Subbulakshmi Vs The Commissioner
of Police (Crl. O.P. No.13103 of 2013 decided on
30.08.2013);

8. Uma Maheshwari Vs The St. Rep. By
Inspector of Police, Central Crime Branch,
Egmore, Channai (Criminal O.P. No.15467 of
2013 decided on 20.12.2013);

9. The Meridian Educational Society Vs The St.
of Telangana (Writ Petition No.21106 of 2021
decided on 04.10.2021);

10. St. of Har. Vs Raghuveer Dayal (1995 SCC
(1) 133),

11. Chief Information Commissioner & anr. Vs
St. of Manipur & anr. (2011 (15) SCC 1),

12. St. of Mah. Vs Tapas D. Neogy (1999) 7 SCC
685),

13. Nasiruddin & ors. Vs Sita Ram Agarwal (AIR
2003 Supreme Court 1543).

(Delivered by Hon'ble Rajnish Kumar, J.)

(1) The instant writ petition had been
filed by the petitioner Amit Singh for
defreezing the Bank account of the
petitioner
bearing
Account
No.733910110001489 in Bank of India,
Branch Panki, Kanpur Nagar and to allow
the petitioner to operate his bank account.
Subsequently by way of amendment the
petitioner has also prayed for quashing the
order dated 18.03.2021, contained in
annexure no.11 to the writ petition by
means of which the account of the
petitioner has been got freezed by the
respondent no.2 i.e. Station House Officer,
Police Station-Kalyanpur, District-Kanpur
Nagar in relation to Case Crime No.1504 of
2020, under Sections 420, 467, 468, 471,
5 All. Amit Singh Vs. State of U.P. & Ors.
1201
120-B
IPC, Police
Station-Kalyanpur,
District- Kanpur Nagar.

(2) Learned counsel for the petitioner
submits that the account of the petitioner
has been seized in violation of the
provisions made under Section 102 of the
Code of Criminal Procedure (hereinafter
referred to as Cr.P.C.). The mandatory
requirements of Section 102(3) Cr.P.C. has
not been followed and the respondent no.2
has not informed the concerned Magistrate
regarding seizure of the bank account,
forthwith. Therefore the Constitutional
right of property envisaged under Article
300-A of the Constitution of India has been
infringed. Thus the impugned order is
liable to be quashed and the respondents be
directed to defreeze the account of the
petitioner and allow him to operate the
account. Learned counsel for the petitioner
has
relied
upon
the
judgments
in
N.Padmamma
and
others
Versus
S.Ramkrishna Reddy and others, Civil
Appeal No.3632 of 2008 decided on
16.05.2008;
D.B.Basnett
(D)
through
LRs.Versus The Collector East District,
Gangtok, Sikkim and another; Civil Appeal
No.196 of 2011 decided on 02.03.2020;
Bajranga (Dead) by Lrs. Versus State of
Madhya Pradesh and others; Civil Appeal
No.6209 of 2010 decided on 19.01.2021;
Ms
Swaran
Sabharwal
Versus
Commissioner of Police, 1990 (68) Comp
Cas
652
Delhi
(DB);
Dr.Shashikant
D.Karnik
Versus
The
State
of
Maharashtra; 2008 Cri.LJ 148 (D.B.);
Muktaben M.Mashru Vs. State of N.C.T. of
Delhi and Another; Crl M.C. 4206 of 2018,
decided
on
29.11.2019;
Tmt.T.
Subbulakshmi Vs. The Commissioner of
Police; Crl. O.P. No.13103 of 2013
decided on 30.08.2013; Uma Maheshwari
Vs. The State Rep. By Inspector of Police,
Central Crime Branch, Egmore, Channai;
Criminal O.P. No.15467 of 2013 decided
on 20.12.2013; The Meridian Educational
Society Vs. The State of Telangana; Writ
Petition No.21106 of 2021 decided on
04.10.2021;
State
of
Haryana
Vs.
Raghuveer Dayal; 1995 SCC (1) 133 and
Chief
Information
Commissioner
&
Another Vs. State of Manipur & Another;
2011 (15) SCC 1.

(3)

Learned
counsel
for
the
respondents
vehemently
opposed
the
submissions of learned counsel for the
petitioner. It is submitted by learned
counsel for the respondents that the account
of the petitioner has rightly been got
freezed in accordance with law by the
respondent no.2 as the consideration
received out of the illegal transactions, in
regard to which F.I.R. vide Case Crime
No.1504 of 2020 (Supra) has been lodged,
has been deposited in the said account,
hence the same is the case property and it
cannot be allowed to be withdrawn by the
petitioner.

(4) It was further contended by
learned A.G.A. that on an application
moved by the petitioner before the
concerned Magistrate it has been informed
that the Bank account has been seized.
Therefore the requirement of Section
102(3) Cr.P.C. stands fulfilled and if there
was any delay, that may not give any
benefit to the petitioner at this stage to get
the account defreezed on this technical
ground. However, the petitioner may move
an application before the concerned Court
for defreezing of his account which may be
considered by the concerned court in
accordance with law.

(5)

We
have
considered
the
submissions of learned counsel for the
parties and perused the record.
1202 INDIAN LAW REPORTS ALLAHABAD SERIES

(6) The First Information Report vide
case Crime No.1504 of 2020, under
Sections 420, 467, 468, 471, 120-B IPC
was lodged at Police Station-Kalyanpur,
District-Kanpur Nagar by the respondent
no.5/Radhelal Goel alleging therein that
some
person
impersonating
him
as
Radhelal sold the land bearing Gata No.782
by executing Power of Attorney in favour
of other persons, who has nothing to do
with the said land, whereas the land is
recorded in the revenue records in the name
of Radhelal son of Ram Milan. During
course of investigation, the name of
petitioner surfaced in commissioning of the
alleged crime and he was arrested on
15.03.2021.

(7) It appears that during investigation
the Investigating Officer found that the sale
consideration received on account of
aforesaid fraudulent transfer of land in
question was deposited in the account of
the
petitioner
bearing
Account
No.733910110001489 in Bank of India,
Branch Panki, Kanpur Nagar. Therefore the
respondent no.2 requested the respondent
no.4 to freeze the account of the petitioner
in his bank with immediate effect. It was
further requested that no transaction be
allowed in future without permission of the
court or police officer.

(8) It appears that after the petitioner
was enlarged on bail by means of order
dated 19.05.2021 and released from Jail, he
approached
the
Chief
Metropolitan
Magistrate, Kanpur Nagar with a prayer to
clarify as to on the basis of which order the
account of the petitioner has been seized so
that he may get the same released through
the court. The said application was moved
on 03.09.2021. The respondent no.2 by
means of the report dated 19.09.2021
informed the court that the account of the
petitioner has been seized in connection
with the case Crime No.1504 of 2020
(Supra).
Thereafter
the
petitioner
approached this court by means of the
present writ petition with the aforesaid
prayers.

(9) Article 300-A of the Constitution
of India provides that "No person shall be
deprived of his property save by authority
of law." Therefore a person can be deprived
of his property only in accordance with
law. The Hon'ble Supreme Court, in the
case of Bajranga (Dead) by LRs. Versus
State of Madhya Pradesh and others
(Supra), has held that right to property is
still a constitutional right under Article
300-A of the Constitution of India though
not a fundamental right and the deprivation
of the right can only be in accordance with
the procedure established by law. Similar
view has been expressed by Hon'ble
Supreme Court in the cases of D.B.Basnett
(D) through LRs Versus The Collector East
District, Gangtok, Sikkim and another
(Supra) and N.Padmamma and others
Versus S.Ramkrishna Reddy and others
(Supra). In the present case however, the
bank account has been got seized in
exercise of powers under Section 102
Cr.P.C.

(10) The relevant Section 102 of
Cr.P.C. is extracted below:-

"102. Power of police officer to seize
certain property;

(1) Any police officer, may seize any
property
which
may
be
alleged
or
suspected to have been stolen, or which
may be found under circumstances which
create suspicion of the commission of any
offence.

(2) Such police officer, if subordinate
to the officer in charge of a police station,
5 All. Amit Singh Vs. State of U.P. & Ors.
1203
shall forthwith report the seizure to that
officer.

(3) Every police officer acting under
sub- section (1) shall forthwith report the
seizure
to
the
Magistrate
having
jurisdiction and where the property seized
is such that it cannot be conveniently
transported to the Court [or where there is
difficulty
in
securing
proper
accommodation for the custody of such
property, or where the continued retention
of the property in police custody may not
be considered necessary for the purpose of
investigation], he may give custody thereof
to any person on his executing a bond
undertaking to produce the property before
the Court as and when required and to give
effect to the further orders of the Court as
to the disposal of the same.]"

(11) The aforesaid provision provides
that any police officer may seize any
property
which
may
be
alleged
or
suspected to have been stolen, or which
may be found under circumstances which
create suspicion of the commission of any
offence. Therefore any police officer may
seize any property even if there is suspicion
that the same is involved in commissioning
of any offence. The property includes Bank
account and a police officer in course of
investigation
can
seize
the
account.
Therefore once it is found by the
Investigating
Officer
that
the
sale
consideration received on account of
alleged fraudulent transaction has been
deposited in the said account, there is no
illegality or infirmity in seizure of the
account of the petitioner for the purposes of
investigation because if the same is not
secured, the amount deposited in the said
account, which would be a case property,
may be withdrawn. The Supreme Court
considered
the
issue
in
State
of
Maharashtra Versus Tapas D. Neogy
(1999) 7 SCC 685 and held as under in
paragraph 12:-

"12..................We
are,
therefore,
persuaded to take the view 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
operation of the said account if such assets
have direct links with the commission of
the offence for which the police officer is
investigating into ............"

(12) The scope and object of Section
102 Cr.P.C. is to help and assist in
investigation and to enable a police officer
to collect and collate evidence to be
produced to prove the charge complained
of and set up in the charge sheet. There is
no
requirement
of
any
notice
or
information
to
the
concerned
before
seizure.

(13) Sub Section (3) of Section 102
Cr.P.C. provides that every police officer
acting under sub-section (1) Cr.P.C. shall
forthwith
report
the
seizure
to
the
Magistrate having jurisdiction. The main
thrust of learned counsel for the petitioner
is that since the police officer acting under
sub-section (1) Cr.P.C., who has seized the
account has not reported the concerned
Magistrate about the seizure forthwith, and
thus seizure has become illegal. Subsection (3) of Section 102 Cr.P.C. further
provides that where the property seized is
such that it cannot be conveniently
transported to the court or where there is
difficulty in securing the custody of the
said property or where the continued
retention of the property in police custody
may not be considered necessary for the
purpose of investigation, he may give
1204 INDIAN LAW REPORTS ALLAHABAD SERIES
custody thereof to any person on his
executing a bond undertaking to produce
the property before the court as and when
required and to give effect to the further
orders of the court as to the disposal of the
same. Therefore the bank account which
has been seized and is in the custody of the
bank is subject to the further orders of the
court as to the disposal of the same,
therefore as per scheme of Code the
purpose of information being given to the
Magistrate concerned is to bring it to the
knowledge
of
the
Court
but
no
consequences thereof has been provided.
However the concerned person may move
appropriate application for its release etc.
from the court. Knowing it well the
petitioner had also, after release from the
Jail on bail, moved an application before
the concerned court to know as to under
which order the account has been seized, so
that he may get the same released through
the court. Therefore once the information in
response to the aforesaid application has
been submitted to the concerned court, it is
apparent that the information has been
furnished to the concerned court. Therefore
the seizure would not become illegal on
this ground.

(14) In view of submissions of
learned counsel for the parties the main
issue which falls for our consideration is as
to whether Section 102(3) Cr.P.C. is
mandatory or directory in nature? It is well
settled that non-observance of a mandatory
condition is fatal to the validity of the
action. However, non-observance would
not matter if the condition is found to be
merely directory. In other words, it is not
that every omission or defect entails the
drastic penalty of invalidity. Whether the
provision is mandatory or directory can be
ascertained by looking at the entire scheme
and purpose of the provision and by
weighing the importance of the condition,
the prejudice to private rights and the
claims of the public interest, therefore, it
will depend upon the provisions of the
statute and mere use of word ''shall' would
itself not make the provision mandatory.
The Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of
State of Haryana Versus Raghuveer Dayal
(Supra) has held that the use of word 'shall'
is ordinarily mandatory but it is sometimes
not so interpreted if the scope of the
enactment, on consequences to flow from
such construction would not so demand.

(15) The Hon'ble Supreme Court, in
the case of Nasiruddin and Others Versus
Sita Ram Agarwal; AIR 2003 Supreme
Court 1543, has held that it is well settled
that the real intention of the legislation
must be gathered from the language used. It
may be true that the use of the expression
''shall or may' is not decisive for arriving at
a finding as to whether statute is directory
or mandatory. But the intention of the
legislature must be found out from the
scheme of the Act. It is also equally well
settled that when negative words are used
the courts will presume that the intention of
the legislature was that the provisions are
mandatory in character. It has further been
held that if an act is required to be
performed by a private person within a
specified time, the same would ordinarily
be
mandatory
but
when
a
public
functionary is required to perform a public
function within a time frame, the same will
be held to be directory unless the
consequences therefor are specified. The
relevant paragraphs 38 and 39 are extracted
below:-

"38.
The
court's
jurisdiction
to
interpret a statute can be invoked when the
same is ambiguous. It is well known that in
a given case the court can iron out the
5 All. Amit Singh Vs. State of U.P. & Ors.
1205
fabric but it cannot change the texture of
the fabric. It cannot enlarge the scope of
legislation or intention when the language
of the provision is plain and unambiguous.
It cannot add or subtract words to a statute
or read something into it which is not there.
It cannot re-write or recast legislation. It is
also necessary to determine that there exists
a presumption that the legislature has not
used any superfluous words. It is well
settled that the real intention of the
legislation must be gathered from the
language used. It may be true that use of
the expression "shall or may" is not
decisive for arriving at a finding as to
whether
the
statute
is
directory
or
mandatory. But the intention of the
legislature must be found out from the
scheme of the Act. It is also equally well
settled that when negative words are used
the courts will presume that the intention of
the legislature was that the provisions are
mandatory in character.

39. Yet there is another aspect of the
matter which cannot be lost sight of. It is a
well-settled principle that if an act is
required to be performed by a private
person within a specified time, the same
would ordinarily be mandatory but when a
public functionary is required to perform a
public function within a time-frame, the
same will be held to be directory unless the
consequences therefor are specified. In
Sutherland's Statutory Construction, 3rd
Edn., Vol. 3, at p. 107 it is pointed out that
a statutory direction to private individuals
should
generally
be
considered
as
mandatory and that the rule is just the
opposite to that which obtains with respect
to public officers. Again, at p. 109, it is
pointed out that often the question as to
whether
a
mandatory
or
directory
construction should be given to a statutory
provision may be determined by an
expression in the statute itself of the result
that shall follow non-compliance with the
provision.

At p. 111 it is stated as follows:

"As a corollary of the rule outlined
above, the fact that no consequences of
non-compliance are stated in the statute,
has been considered as a factor tending
towards a directory construction. But this is
only an element to be considered, and is by
no means conclusive."

(16) The consequences of non
reporting about the seized property have
not been provided under the section. In
addition, the requirement of reporting in the
manner, as stated, is on the part of a public
functionary and in view of the law laid
down by the Hon'ble Supreme Court, as
noticed above, the same is required to be
held
to
be
directory
unless
the
consequences thereof are specified. Since
the consequences have not been specified,
it would be safe to hold that requirement of
Section 102(3) Cr.P.C. cannot be termed as
mandatory but would be directory in
nature.

(17) The Scheme for disposal of
property under the Code is provided under
Chapter XXXIV of the Cr.P.C. Section 451
provides that when any property is
produced before any Criminal Court during
any inquiry or trial, the Court may make
such order as it thinks fit for the proper
custody of such property pending the
conclusion of the inquiry or trial. Section
452 provides the order for disposal of
property at conclusion of trial. Section 457
(1) provides that whenever the seizure of
property by any police officer is reported to
a Magistrate under the provisions of this
Code, and such property is not produced
before a Criminal Court during an inquiry
or trial, the Magistrate may make such
1206 INDIAN LAW REPORTS ALLAHABAD SERIES
order as he thinks fit respecting the disposal
of such property or the delivery of such
property to the person entitled to the
possession thereof, or if such person cannot
be ascertained, respecting the custody and
production of such property. Sub-section
(2) provides that if the person so entitled is
known, the Magistrate may order the
property to be delivered to him on such
conditions (if any) as the Magistrate thinks
fit and if such person is unknown, the
Magistrate may detain it and shall, in such
case, issue a proclamation specifying the
articles of which such property consists,
and requiring any person who may have a
claim thereto, to appear before him and
establish his claim within six months from
the date of such proclamation.

(18) In view of above scheme of the
Code the purpose of information given to
the
Magistrate
regarding
seizure
of
property by the Police Officer is merely to
facilitate its disposal in accordance with
law during pendency of trial or subsequent
thereto. Therefore non reporting of the
seizure forthwith, as provided under
Section 102(3) Cr.P.C., shall not ipsofacto
render the seizure illegal particularly as no
period is specified and it's consequences
have not been provided. Therefore when on
an application moved by the petitioner, the
same has been informed, the petitioner may
move the concerned Magistrate for the
custody of the property i.e. unfreezing of
the account of the petitioner, which may be
dealt with in accordance with law and on
it's own merit.

(19) The Delhi High Court, in the
case of Ms.Swaran Sabharwal Versus
Commissioner of Police (Supra), quashed
the prohibitory order on the ground that the
moneys in the bank does not constitute
"case property". In the case of Dr.
Shashikant D. Karnik Versus The State of
Maharashtra (Supra), the Bombay High
Court allowed the petition on the ground
that all the three requirements of Section
102 Cr.P.C. have not been complied. It
appears that in this case a direction was
issued not to permit operation of the bank
accounts of petitioner therein and his
family without seizure therefore the court
was of the view that there can not be an
interim
order
and
thereafter
it's
continuation. The authorities had also
failed to ascertain, by the time it was
decided, as to whether there was any
connection of it with the alleged crime. The
court has only mentioned that sub-section
(3) of Section 102 lays down a mandate
without any finding as to whether it is
mandatory or directory. The Court without
any provision has also observed that there
is a fourth requirement of law that notice is
required to be given before stopping the
operation of the account. In the absence of
any specific stipulation in the statute or
necessary consequence flowing from the
scheme contained in the Act, we are not
inclined to subscribe to such a view.

(20) In the present case we have
considered the issue in detail and are of the
view that sub-Section (3) of Section 102
Cr.P.C. is directory in nature and once the
court has been informed of freezing of bank
account on an application moved by the
petitioner, the requirement of statute stands
fulfilled. Deprivation of property (freezing
of bank account) otherwise being as per
law, the argument that Article 300-A of
Constitution is violated cannot be accepted.
Contrary view taken by learned Single
Judges of the High Courts of Delhi, Madras
and Telangana in the judgments in Ms
Swaran Sabharwal Versus Commissioner
of Police, 1990 (68) Comp Cas 652 Delhi
(DB); Muktaben M.Mashru Vs. State of
5 All. Umesh Dixit Vs. State of U.P. & Ors.
1207
N.C.T. of Delhi and Another; Crl M.C.
4206 of 2018, decided on 29.11.2019;
Tmt.T.
Subbulakshmi
Vs.
The
Commissioner
of
Police;
Crl.
O.P.
No.13103 of 2013 decided on 30.08.2013;
Uma Maheshwari Vs. The State Rep. By
Inspector of Police, Central Crime Branch,
Egmore, Channai; Criminal O.P. No.15467
of 2013 decided on 20.12.2013; The
Meridian Educational Society Vs. The State
of Telangana; Writ Petition No.21106 of
2021 decided on 04.10.2021 without
considering and dealing with the provisions
and scheme of the Code cannot be relied
upon. Therefore these judgments can not be
of any help to the petitioner. The Judgment,
in
the
case
of
Chief
Information
Commissioner and another Versus State of
Manipur and another (Supra), relied by
learned counsel for the petitioner, is also
not
applicable
in
the
facts
and
circumstances of the present case.

(21) In view of the discussions made
above this court is of the considered opinion
that there is no infringement of Constitutional
right of property of the petitioner under
Article 300-A of the Constitution of India.
Article 300-A of the Constitution of India
only provides that no person shall be
deprived of his property save by authority of
law. The alleged deprivation of property
(freezing of bank account) since is found to
be in accordance with applicable law i.e.
Code of Criminal Procedure, the action
complained of is clearly in consonance with
Article 300-A of the Constitution of India.
Petitioner's plea of violation of Article 300-A
of Constitution of India cannot be pressed to
impeach the act of freezing of bank account
after such act is held to be as per applicable
law i.e. the Code of Criminal Procedure.

(22) The bank account of the
petitioner has been got freezed in exercise
of powers given under Section 102 Cr.P.C.
and the Code of Criminal Procedure
restricts the release of such bank account
only to an order passed by the Magistrate,
which is not the case here. The provisions
of the Code thus cannot be by-passed on
the plea that Article 300-A of Constitution
of India is violated. Merely because the
freezing of bank account is not reported
forthwith
and
reported
only
on
an
application moved by the petitioner, it
cannot be said that there is infringement of
right of property given under Article 300-A
of the Constitution of India. The plea of the
petitioner in this regard is misconceived
and not sustainable. The writ petition
consequently lacks merit and is dismissed.
No order is passed as to costs.
----------
(2022)05ILR A1207
ORIGINAL JURISDICTION
CRIMINAL SIDE
DATED: LUCKNOW 25.05.2022

BEFORE

THE HON'BLE RAMESH SINHA, J.
THE HON'BLE MRS. SAROJ YADAV, J.

Criminal Misc. Writ Petition No. 24795 of 2020

Umesh Dixit ...Petitioner
Versus
State of U.P. & Ors. ...Respondents

Counsel for the Petitioner:
Girish Kumar Pandey

Counsel for the Respondents:
G.A., Arun Sinha, Mohammad Zeeshan Lari,
Siddharth Sinha

Criminal Law - Constitution of India,1950
- Article 14, 72, 161, 226 - Indian Penal
Code, 1860 - Sections 120-B, 147, 148,
149, 302, 302(3), 307(4), 338, 379, 452,
504, 323, 336, 352, 427, 452 & 504 -
Arms Act, 1878 - Section - 25(1-B) -
Criminal Procedure Code,1973 - Sections