# Silicon Union & Anr v. State of U.P. & Ors

- **Citation:** (2021) 9 ILRA 671
- **Court:** High Court of Judicature at Allahabad
- **Decided:** 2021-09-14
- **Case number:** Crl. Misc. Writ Petition No. 4779 of 2021
- **Bench:** Surya Prakash Kesarwani
- **Source:** https://unisonlegal.in/judgment/allahabad-high-court/silicon-union-anr-v-state-of-u-p-ors-47460
- **Pages:** 3

## Headnote

A. Criminal Law - Constitution of India,
1950-Article
226
&
Indian
Penal
Code,1860-Sections 406, 420, 467, 468,
471-challenge
to-First
Information
Report-petitioners fraudulently taken sum
of Rs. 4 Crore apprx., after much
persuasion a sum of Rs. 60 to 75 lac have
been refunded but Rs. 30 lac still with the
petitioners-the said amount was paid by
the informant to the petitioners bank
account through R.T.G.S.-the police officer
in course of investigation can seize or
prohibit the operation of the said account
as there is direct link between the alleged
offence
and
the
bank
account-even
though section 102 Cr.P.C. has not been
mentioned in the impugned notice but the
power exercised by the Investigating
Officer to freeze the bank account in
question is referable to Section 102(3)
Cr.P.C.-the only irregularity appears that
the Investigating Officer has not reported
forthwith the fact of freezing the bank
account
to
the
concerned
Judicial
Magistrate.(Para 1 to 9)

The writ petition is dismissed. (E-6)

List of Cases cited:

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

## Text

9 All Silicon Union & Anr. Vs. State of U.P. & Ors.
671

82. Having regard to the aforestated
reasons, this Court is of the view that
before passing an order in revision under
Section 102 of the JJ Act, in a matter
relating to consideration of bail to a 'child
in
conflict
with
law',
the
complainant/victim would be required to be
given a reasonable opportunity of being
heard before any order prejudicial to
his/her interest, is passed. Taking any other
view would render the proviso to Section
102 redundant.

83. Let notice be issued to opposite
party no.2 returnable within four weeks.

84. List/put up on date fixed.
----------
(2021)09ILR A671
ORIGINAL JURISDICTION
CIVIL SIDE
DATED: ALLAHABAD 14.09.2021

BEFORE

THE HON'BLE SURYA PRAKASH
KESARWANI, J.
THE HON'BLE PIYUSH AGRAWAL J.

Crl. Misc. Writ Petition No. 4779 of 2021

Silicon Union & Anr. ...Petitioners
Versus
State of U.P. & Ors. ...Respondents

Counsel for the Petitioners:
Sri Santosh Kumar Shukla, Sri Vimal Kumar
Misra

Counsel for the Respondents:
A.G.A., Sri Ved Byas Mishra

A. Criminal Law - Constitution of India,
1950-Article
226
&
Indian
Penal
Code,1860-Sections 406, 420, 467, 468,
471-challenge
to-First
Information
Report-petitioners fraudulently taken sum
of Rs. 4 Crore apprx., after much
persuasion a sum of Rs. 60 to 75 lac have
been refunded but Rs. 30 lac still with the
petitioners-the said amount was paid by
the informant to the petitioners bank
account through R.T.G.S.-the police officer
in course of investigation can seize or
prohibit the operation of the said account
as there is direct link between the alleged
offence
and
the
bank
account-even
though section 102 Cr.P.C. has not been
mentioned in the impugned notice but the
power exercised by the Investigating
Officer to freeze the bank account in
question is referable to Section 102(3)
Cr.P.C.-the only irregularity appears that
the Investigating Officer has not reported
forthwith the fact of freezing the bank
account
to
the
concerned
Judicial
Magistrate.(Para 1 to 9)

The writ petition is dismissed. (E-6)

List of Cases cited:

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

(Delivered by Hon'ble Surya Prakash
Kesarwani, J.
&
Hon'ble Piyush Agrawal, J.)

1. Heard Sri S.K. Shukla, learned
counsel for the petitioners; Sri Patanjali
Mishra, learned AGA for State-respondents
and Sri Ved Byas Mishra, learned counsel
for the informant-respondent-5.

2. This writ petition has been filed
praying for the following relief:-

"I. Issue a writ, order or direction
in the nature of certiorari quashing the
Notice / order dated 31.01.2021 issued by
Respondent No. 3 (Annexure No. 6 to the
Criminal Misc. Writ Petition) by which
directed to the Respondent no. 4 to freeze
the account No. 577102000013527 of the
petitioner no. 2.
672 INDIAN LAW REPORTS ALLAHABAD SERIES

II. Issue a writ, order or direction
in the nature of mandamus directing the
Branch Manager I.D.B.I. Bank, Regional
Officer I.D.B.I. Tower W.T.C. Complex
Mumbai,
Maharastra
to
allow
the
Petitioner No. 2 to operate her account No.
577102000013527."

3. The informant-respondent no. 5 has
lodged the F.I.R. No. 047 of 2021, dated
10.1.2021, under Sections 406, 420, 467, 468,
471
IPC,
Police
Station
Phase
III,
Commissionerate, Gautam Buddha Nagar
alleging that the petitioners have fraudulently
taken a sum of Rs. 4,58,60,160/- out of
which, after much persuasion a sum of Rs. 60
lakh and 75 lakh have been refunded on
9.6.2020 and 10.6.2020 and a sum of Rs.
3,03,19,200/- is still with the petitioners
which they have retained fraudulently and the
aforesaid amount was paid by the informant
to the petitioners in their bank account no.
577102000013527, I.D.B.I. Bank, Thane
Branch, Mumbai through R.T.G.S. The
Investigating Officer issued the impugned
notice dated 31.1.2021 to the Branch
Manager I.D.B.I. Bank with reference to the
aforesaid bank account and requested to
freeze the aforesaid account and by the same
notice the Investigating Officer has also
requested the Branch Manager to give
statement of the account in question from
1.1.2020 till date. The
impugned notice dated 31.1.2021 has been
challenged in the present writ petition.

4. Undisputedly, the aforesaid amount
in question was paid as advance by the
informant-respondent no. 5 to the petitioners
through R.T.G.S. in the aforesaid bank
account. The allegation in the F.I.R. is that
the amount was fraudulently obtained by the
petitioners from the informant-respondent.
Although the heading on the top of the
impugned notice is "नोनटस अिंतगात धारा 91
सी. आर. पी. सी." but the last portion of the
notice to freeze the bank account is referable
to Section 102 Cr. P. C.

5. In the case of State of Maharastra
Vs. Tapas D. Neogy, (1999) 7 SCC 685
(para 12), Hon'ble the Supreme Court
considered the scope of Section 102 Cr P C
and held as under:

"12.
Having
considered
the
divergent views taken by different High
Courts with regard to the power of seizure
under Section 102 of the Code of Criminal
Procedure, and whether the bank account
can be held to be `property' within the
meaning of said Section 102 (1), we see no
justification to give any narrow interpretation
to the provisions of the Criminal Procedure
Code. It is well known that corruption in public
offices has become so rampant that it has
become difficult to cope up with the same.
Then again the time consumed by the Courts
in concluding the trials is another factor which
should be borne in mind in interpreting the
provisions of Section 102 of the Criminal
Procedure Code and the underlying object
engrafted therein, inasmuch as if there can
be no order of seizure of the bank account of
the accused then the entire money deposited
in a bank which is ultimately held in the trial to
be the outcome of the illegal gratification,
could be withdrawn by the accused and the
Courts would be powerless to get the said
money which has any direct link with the
commission of the offence committed by the
accused as a public officer. We are,
therefore, persuaded to take the view that
the bank account of the accused or any of
his relation 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. The
contrary view expressed by Karnataka,
9 All Umashankar & Anr. Vs. State of U.P. & Ors.
673
Gauhati and Allahabad High Courts, does
not represent the correct law. It may also be
seen that under the Prevention of Corruption
Act, 1988, in the matter of imposition of fine
under sub-section (2) of Section 13, the
legislatures have provided that the Courts in
fixing the amount of fine shall take into
consideration the amount or the value of the
property, which the accused person has
obtained by committing the offence or where
the conviction is for an offence referred to in
clause (e) of sub- section(1) of Section 13,
the pecuniary resources or property for
which the accused person is unable to
account satisfactorily. The interpretation
given by us in respect of the power of
seizure under Section 102 of the Criminal
Procedure Code is in accordance with the
intention of the legislature engrafted in
Section 16 of the Prevention of Corruption
Act referred to above. In the aforesaid
premises, we have no hesitation to come to
the conclusion that the High Court of
Bombay committed error in holding that the
police officer could not have seized the bank
account or could not have issued any
direction to the bank officer, prohibiting the
account of the accused from being operated
upon. Though we have laid down the law,
but so far as the present case is concerned,
the order impugned has already been given
effect to and the accused has been
operating upon his account, and so, we do
not interfere with the same."

6. The petitioners are accused in the
above noted F.I.R. The amount in question
was transferred by the informant -respondent
no. 5 to the petitioners in the aforesaid bank
account which has been freezed pursuant to
the impugned notice. The bank account of the
accused / petitioners is a ''property' within the
meaning of Section 102 of Cr. P.C. The
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.

7. Prima facie, there is a direct link
between the alleged commission of offence
and the aforesaid bank account which is
being investigated by the Investigating
Officer. Therefore, even though Section 102
Cr. P. C. has not been mentioned in the
impugned notice but the power exercised by
the Investigating Officer to freeze the bank
account in question is referable to Section
102 (3) Cr. P. C. The only irregularity which
appears to us is that the Investigating Officer
has not reported forthwith the fact of freezing
the bank account to the concerned Judicial
Magistrate.

8. Therefore, considering the facts and
circumstances of the case in its entirety, we
do not find any good reason to interfere with
the impugned notice. However, we direct that
in the event, the fact of freezing the bank
account in question has not yet been reported
by the Investigating Officer, same shall be
reported by the Investigating Officer to the
concerned Judicial Magistrate immediately
and not later than a week from today.

9. Subject to aforesaid observation, the
writ petition is dismissed.
----------
(2021)09ILR A673
ORIGINAL JURISDICTION
CIVIL SIDE
DATED: ALLAHABAD 03.09.2021

BEFORE

THE HON'BLE SURYA PRAKASH
KESARWANI, J.
THE HON'BLE PIYUSH AGRAWAL, J.

Crl. Misc. Writ Petition No. 5156 of 2021

Umashankar & Anr. ...Petitioners
Versus
State of U.P. & Ors. ...Respondents

Counsel for the Petitioners: