# Soni Devi v. State of U.P. & Ors

- **Citation:** (2020) 1 ILRA 1018
- **Court:** High Court of Judicature at Allahabad
- **Decided:** 2017-10-12
- **Case number:** Writ C No. 7473 of 2015
- **Bench:** Sudhir Agarwal, Ajit Kumar
- **Source:** https://unisonlegal.in/judgment/allahabad-high-court/soni-devi-v-state-of-u-p-ors-44308
- **Pages:** 3

## Headnote

the orders of Police u/s 102 Cr.P.C.-order
of seizing any property to be passed only
upon suspicion that property is stolenand
such
order
to
be
immediately
communicated to Magistrate-Magistrate
to pass further orders-impugned order is
not
u/s
102Cr.
P.C.-nor
any
communication to the Magistrate-bad.

Writ Petition allowed with cost of Rs.
25,000/-. (E-9)

Cases cited: -

## Text

1 All. State of U.P. & Ors. Vs. Shri Brahma Dev Tripathi & Anr.
1019

33. Accordingly, the writ petition
fails and is hereby dismissed.

34.

The
interim
order
dated
16.02.2004 stands vacated. Costs easy.
----------
(2020)1ILR1018

ORIGINAL JURISDICTION
CIVIL SIDE
DATED: ALLAHABAD 12.10.2017

BEFORE
THE HON'BLE SUDHIR AGARWAL, J.
THE HON'BLE AJIT KUMAR, J.

Writ C No. 7473 of 2015

Soni Devi ...Petitioner
Versus
State of U.P. & Ors. ...Respondents
Counsel for the Petitioner:
Sri Satyendra Kumar Mishra

Counsel for the Respondents:
C.S.C., Sri Anadi Krishna Narayana, Sri
Amit Srivastava, Sri Sandeep Kumar Singh

A. Petitioner's bank account seized under
the orders of Police u/s 102 Cr.P.C.-order
of seizing any property to be passed only
upon suspicion that property is stolenand
such
order
to
be
immediately
communicated to Magistrate-Magistrate
to pass further orders-impugned order is
not
u/s
102Cr.
P.C.-nor
any
communication to the Magistrate-bad.

Writ Petition allowed with cost of Rs.
25,000/-. (E-9)

Cases cited: -

1. State of Maharashtra Vs. Tapan D. Neogy
[(1999) 7 SCC 685]

(Delivered by Hon'ble Sudhir Agarwal, J.
Hon'ble Ajit Kumar, J.)

1. Heard Sri Satyendra Kumar
Mishra, learned counsel for petitioner, Sri
Amit Srivastava, Advocate, holding brief
of Sri Anadi Krishan Narayana, Advocate
and
learned
Standing
Counsel
for
respondents.

2. Grievance of petitioner is that she
had opened a bank account bearing No.
37830100003500
in
her
name
in
respondent-Bank and there she deposited
Rs. 3,50,000/- in the form of fixed deposit
and maturity period for the same was 444
days. After maturity period was over and
petitioner wanted to withdraw money,
respondent-Bank refused the same on the
ground that account has been freezed.
Petitioner, therefore, has come up before
this Court for release of money which she
had put in a fixed term deposit.

3. In the counter affidavit filed by
Bank, stand taken is that bank account of
petitioner has been frozen under orders of
police dated 06.06.2012 and said letter
which is alleged to be an order in
purported exercise of power under Section
102 Cr.P.C., has been filed as Annexure
No. 1 to counter affidavit.

4. Rival submissions fall for
consideration. Before proceeding further
in the matter, it is necessary to examine
the powers of police in respect of seizure
of property as has been conferred upon it
by virtue of Section 102 Cr.P.C. reads as
under:-

"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.
1020 INDIAN LAW REPORTS ALLAHABAD SERIES

(2)
Such
police
officer,
if
subordinate to the officer in charge of a
police station, 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.

Provided that where the property
seized under sub-section (1) is subject to
speedy and natural decay and if the person
entitled to the possession of such property
is unknown or absent and the value of such
property is less than five hundred rupees,
it may forthwith be sold by auction under
the orders of the Superintendent of Police
and the provisions of sections 457 and 458
shall, as nearly as may be practicable,
apply to the net proceeds of such sale."

5. From bare reading of aforesaid
provision, it is clear that a police officer
for seizing the property which may be
suspected to have been stolen or which
may
be
found
under
particular
circumstances
to
create
suspicion
regarding commission of an offence, shall
pass an order of seizure of property and
after passing order of seizure shall
immediately communicate to Magistrate
about act of seizure and thereafter,
procedure is for Magistrate to further take
care of property by issuing appropriate
orders.

6. From the perusal of documents
which has been filed as Annexure No. 1 to
counter affidavit, we do not find any
whisper of any order having been passed
in exercise of power under Section 102
Cr.P.C. by concerned police officer nor
there is any communication thereof to
Magistrate concerned. The documents
seems to be a simple letter of request not
to permit any meddling with account of
petitioner during investigation. Thus, there
was not even any request for seizure of
account.

7. In the case of State of
Maharashtra Vs. Tapan D. Neogy
[(1999) 7 SCC 685], Supreme Court has
held that in case of bank account it can be
treated
as
property
and
during
investigation it can be seized by police by
exercising power under Section 102
Cr.P.C. However, Supreme Court has held
that for this purpose either police officer
shall pass an order of seizure or shall issue
a direction to Bank to prohibit operation of
account. Thus, it is clear that police officer
during investigation can pass an order for
seizure of account in the first instance or
even can make a direction to Bank to
prohibit operation of account as may be
necessary during the investigation but in
both cases, police officer has to pass a
positive order.

8. From the perusal of letter which has
been relied upon by petitioner for seizing bank
account of petitioner and withholding of credit
of fixed deposit receipt, it is absolutely clear
that there was no order passed by police officer
to seize the account or to prohibit operation of
account because it merely made a request that
meddling with account should not be done.
1 All. Soni Devi Vs. State of U.P. & Ors.
1021

9. We fail to understand that what
actually meddling with account means. It
can either be seizure or its operation can
be prohibited. There is no averment in the
entire counter affidavit as to in what
manner meddling of account was there
which was sought to be prohibited.

10. Branch Manager of concerned
Bank instead of making a request for an
order of seizure immediately, it appears,
acted upon request letter on his own and
seized the account which the Banking
Regulations do not permit in the absence
of any order to that effect either by police
or by competent authority.

11. In view of above, we hold that
seizure or withholding of fixed deposit
money of petitioner on its maturity by
Bank is absolutely an illegal act and
cannot be sustained in law and has resulted
in utter harassment to the widow lady.

12. We, therefore, direct the Bank to
immediately credit the amount of fixed
deposit of petitioner in her account and
permit her to withdraw the same.

13. Accordingly, this writ petition is
allowed with a cost which we quantify to
Rs. 25,000/- to be paid to petitioner by the
bank in first instance and same shall be
recovered from the concerned Bank
Manager who has committed default.
----------
(2020)1ILR 1021

ORIGINAL JURISDICTION
CIVIL SIDE
DATED: ALLAHABAD 13.11.2019

BEFORE
THE HON'BLE PRADEEP KUMAR SINGH
BAGHEL, J.
THE HON'BLE PIYUSH AGRAWAL, J.

Writ C No. 13520 of 2018

Pal Singh & Ors. ...Petitioners
Versus
State of U.P. & Ors. ...Respondents

Counsel for the Petitioners:
Sri Madhusudan Dikshit

Counsel for the Respondents:
C.S.C.

A. The Urban Land (Ceiling & Regulation)
Act, 1976 - Sections 2(o) - urban land -
Section 2(q) - vacant land - Section
10(5) - notice calling upon the land
owner to hand over possession of the
land declared surplus - Section 10(6) -
power upon the competent authority to
take forceful possession - The Urban Land
(Ceiling & Regulation) Repeal Act, 1999 -
section 3 - saving clause - section 4 -
Abatement of legal proceeding - if at the
time of the enforcement of the Repeal Act
the possession has not been taken by the
State in terms of sub-section (5) or subsection (6) of Section 10 of the Act, 1976,
then the proceedings under Section 1976
shall be abated. (Para 22)

Actual possession was never handed over to
the Saharanpur Development Authority except
a Dakhalnama wherein the land has been
shown to be agricultural land - no construction
has been made - In any view of the matter, if
the possession has not been taken in terms of
Sections 10(5) and 10(6) of the Act, 1976, the
petitioners are entitled for the benefit under
Sections 3 and 4 of the Repeal Act. (Para 34)

Held: - The physical possession of the land in
question was never taken from the petitioners -
They are still in physical possession over the
land in question - The ceiling proceedings
stood lapsed and the petitioners are entitled for
the land in question which has been declared
surplus. (Para 35)