# TEESTA ATUL SETALVAD v. THE STATE OF GUJARAT

- **Citation:** [2017] 12 S.C.R. 774
- **Court:** Supreme Court of India
- **Decided:** 2017
- **Case number:** Criminal Appeal No. 1099 of2017
- **Bench:** Dipak Misra, A. M. Khanwilkar
- **Source:** https://unisonlegal.in/judgment/supreme-court-of-india/teesta-atul-setalvad-v-the-state-of-gujarat-31755
- **Pages:** 31

## Headnote

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

## Text

_Characters 0–39,952 of 70,249. This is a partial read: ask again with offset=39952 for what follows._

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 suspicious
of the commission of the alleged offence. That is still a matter of H
776
SUPREME COURT REPORTS
[2017] 12 S.C.R.
A investigation. For the present, the Investigating Officer is of the
view that there are certain circumstances emerging from the
transactions done from these bank accounts which create
suspicion of the commission of an offence. It is on that belief he
has exercised his discretion to issue directions to seize the bank
B
c
accounts pertaining to CJP Trust. [Para 17)(800-E-G]
3. As regards the procedure for issuing instructions to
freeze the bank accounts, it is noticed that the same has been
followed by giving Intimation to the concerned Magistrate as
required in terms of Section i02_ of the Code. There is nothing
in Section 102 which mandates gi\•ing of prior notice to the
account holder before the seizure .of his bank aceount.[Para
18][800-H]
4. The 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
D and he having exercised powers under Section 102 of the Code,
which he could, in law, therefore, could legitimately seize the bank
accounts of the appellants after following the procedure
prescribed in sub-Section (2) and sub-Section (3) of the same
provision. The Investigating Officer after issuing instructions to
E
seize the stated bank accounts of the appellants submitted report
to the Magistrate concerned and thus complied with the
requirement of sub-Section (3).[Para 22](803-G-H; 804-A]
5. Indisputably, the investigation is still in progress. The
appellants will have to explain their position to the investigating
F
agency and after investigation is complete, the matter can proceed
further depending on the material gathered during the
investigation. The suspicion entertained by the investigating
agency as to how the appellants appropriated huge funds, which
in fact were meant to be disbursed to the unfortunate victims of
2002 riots will have to be explained by the appellants. Further,
G once the investigation is complete and police report is submitted
to the concerned Court, it would be open to the 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 subH Section (3) of Section 102 of the Code. It will be open to the
TEESTA ATUL SETALVAD v. THE STATE OF GUJARAT
777
concerned Court to consider that request in accordance with law A
after hearing the investigating agency, including to impose
conditions as may be warranted in the fact situation of the case.
[Para 23][804-C-E)
6. It is clarified that at an appropriate stage or upon
completion of the investigation, if the Investigating Officer is
B
satisfied with the explanation offered by the appellants and is of
the opinion that continuance of the seizure of the stated bank
accounts or any one of them is not necessary, he may issue
instruction in that behalf.[Para 25)(804-G)
State of Maharashtra v. Tapas D. Neogy. (1999) 7 SCC
C
685 : [1999) 2 Suppl. SCR 609 - relied on.
Vinoskurnar Ramacha11dran Valluvar v. The State of
Maharashtra (2011) Cri.L.J. 2522 (Born.); Adarsh Cooperative Housing Society Limited v. Union of India &
Ors. (2012) Cri.L.J. 520 (Born.) - approved.
D
MT. Enrica Lexie and Anr. v. Doramma and Ors. (2012)
6 SCC 760 : (2012) 4 SCR 174; Sri Jayendra
Saraswathy Swamigal (11), T.N. v. State of T.N. and Ors.
(2005) 8 SCC 771 : [2005] 4 Suppl. SCR 556; Dr.
Shashikant D. Karnik v. State of Maharashtra (2008)
E
Cri.L .• J. 148 (Born.) - referred to.
Case Law Reference
(2011) Cri.L.J. 2522 (Born.)
approved
Para 9
[2012] 4 SCR174
referred to
Para 11
[2005) 4 Suppl. SCR 556
referred to
Para 11
[1999] 2 Suppl. SCR 609
relied on
Para 14
(2008) Cri.L;J. 148 (Born.)
referred to
Para 18
(2012) Cri.L.J. 520 (Born.)
approved
Para 18
CRIMINAL APPELLATE JURISDICTION: Criminal Appeal No.
1099of2017.
·
From the Judgment and Order dated 06/07. l 0.2015 of the High
Court of Gujarat at Ahmedabad in Criminal Revision Application No.
F
G
249 of2015.
H
778
SUPREME COURT REPORTS
(2017) 12 S.C.R.
A
WITH
Crl.A. Nos. 1083, 1084and 1085 of2017.
Kap ii Sibal, Sr. Adv., Ms. Kamini J aiswal, Ashwin S. Mehta, Ms.
Rani Mishra, J atinderpal Singh, Ms. Apa ma Bhat, Pukhrambam Ramesh
Kumar, Ms. Joshita Pai, Raghav Tankha, Adit S. Pujari, Nizam Pasha,
B
Advs. for the Appellant.
c
D
E
F
G
H
Tushar Mehta, ASG, Ms. Hcmantika Wahi, Ms. Shodika Sharma,
Ajay Chokshi, Ad vs. for the Respondents.
The Judgment of the Court was delivered by
A. M. KHANWILKAR, J. 1. The common question posed in
these appeals centres around the sweep, purport and applicability of
Section I 02 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 (hereinafter referred
to as "the Code"), which reads thus:·
"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, shall forthwith report the seizure to that
office~
·
(3) Every police officer acting under sub-section (I) 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 giv._e custody
thereof to any person on his executing a bond undt:rtaking
· 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
(I) is su~ject to speedy and natural decay and if the person
TEESTA ATUL SETALVAD v. THE STATE OF GUJARAT
779
[A. M. KHANWILKAR, J.]
entitled to the possession of such property is unknown or A.
absent f!nd the value of such property is less than jive 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."
.
2. The bank accounts, in all nine, of the appellants have been
seized on the instructions of the Investigating Officer as a sequel to the
complaint filed by the members ofGulberg Co-Operative Housing Society,
registered by D.C.P. Police Station, bearing CR No.1/2014, on 14'"
January, 2014 for offence punishable under Sections 406, 420 and 120B
B
of the Indian Penal Code and Section 72Aofthe Information Technology
Act, 2000. The bank accounts were seized and intimation in that behalf
was given to the concerned Magistrate on 21 '' January, 2014. The
appellants filed a petition before the Bombay High Court, being Writ
Petition (Criminal) No.173/2014, for quashing of the FIR and for setting
aside the freezing order which, however, was rejected on 4'" November,
D
2014 with liberty to the appellants to approach the jurisdictional court.
Against the iiaid decision the appellants preferred special leave petition
before this Court, being Special Leave Petition (Criminal) No.3330/2014,
which was allowed to be withdrawn on 5'" May, 2014 with liberty to the
appellants to move before the Competent Authority. The appellants then
filed Special Criminal Application No.27l 0/2014 before the High Court
c
E
of Gujarat atAhmedabad. That application was, however, withdrawn on
29'" September, 2014 with libe11y to approach the concerned Magistrate
for appropriate relief.
3. The appellants thereafter moved formal applications before
the Metropolitan Magistrate's Court atAhmedabad, being Miscellaneous
Application Nos.175-178/2014 which were dismissed by common order
dated 28'h November, 2014 passed by Additional Chief Metropolitan
Magistrate, Ahmedabad. Aggrieved, the appellants filed four separate
revision applications before the High Court of Gujarat at Ahmedabad,
bearing Criminal Revision Application Nos.249-252 of2015. While the
. said revision applications were pending, the anticipatory bail application
filed by the appellants in connection with the alleged offence came to be
rejected by the High Court by a speaking order dated 12•h February,
20 LS. That order has been challenged by way of Special Leave Petition
(Criminal) No.1512/2015 which has been converted into Criminal Appeal
F
G
H
780
SUPREME COURT REPORTS
[2017] 12 S.C.R.
A
No.338/2015 and is pending for consideration by a larger Bench in terms
oforderdated 19'h March, 2015. The appellants have been given interim
protection of stay of arrest during the pendency of the said appeal.
B
c
4. The other relevant fact to be noteais that additional offences
have been added to the FIR in relation to which the bank account freezing
directions were issued by the Investigating Officer, punishable under
Sections 467 and 471 of the Indian Penal Code ("IPC"). Besides, the
Competent Authority under the Foreign Contribution (Regulation) Act,
1976 issued orders on z3rd July, 2015, categorising the authorization in
· respect of Citizens for Justice and Peace Trust ('~CJP Trust", appellant
in Criminal Appeal No.1084/2017), as "prior permission". In so far as
the Sabrang Trust (appellant in Criminal Appeal No. l 085/2017), vi de
order dated 91h September, 2015 the Competent Authority suspended its
authorisation. It is also relevant to note that FIR has been registered by
the Competent Authority of CBI in respect of violation of Foreign
Contribution (Regulation) Act, 1976. On 81h July, 2015 the appellants
D
have been granted anticipatory bail in respect of the said offence.
E
F
G
H
5. Be that as it may, the criminal revision applications preferred
by the appellants before the High Court of Gujarat, challenging the order
dated 28'h November, 2014 passed by the Magistrate rejecting the prayer
for lifting of the bank account freezing, were finally heard and dismissed
vide common judgment dated 6'hf7•h October, 2015. This order is the
subject matter of the present appeals. In other words, the limited issue
to be addressed in the present appeals is about the justness of the action
of the Investigating Officer of freezing of stated bank accounts of the
appellants in connection with FIR registered as CRNo.l/2014; and the
correctness of the approach of the Magistrate in rejecting the request
for de-freezing the bank accounts of the appellants as affirmed by the
High Corn1 vide impugned judgment.
6. The genesis of the freezing of the bank accounts of the
appellants is the registration of the FIR bearing CR No. l/2014 on 4'h
January, 2014. The same reads as follows:
"First Information Report of Offence under police Jurisdiction
(under Sec.154 of Cr.P. C)
1. Dist. Ahmedabad Po.St. D. C.P. ·
Year-2014.
First Information no. I CR No.01120)4 Dt.41112014.
TEESTAATUL SETALVAD v. THE STATE OF GUJARAT
781
[A. M. KHANWILKAR, J.]
2. Law
A
(1) JPC sec.406, 420, 120(B) and The l.T. Act. 72(A)
(2)-
(3)-
3. (A) Date of offence occurred and date:- year from 2007 to
B
till today.
·
(B) Date declared of offence (Po.St.) :- 411114 Time:-14: 15
(CJ Station diary entry no. 0712014
Time: 14:15
4. How got infonnation :- Oral or writing :- Writing.
C
5. Offence place :
(A} Distance of offence from po.st. and direction. Beat no. I
Chawky name ... :-
(B) Address :- Gu/berg Society, Meghani Nagar, Ahmedabad D
and by the interest
(CJ If the offence has occurred outside the police station then
name of that police station .... :-
6. Complaint I information :-
(A) Name : Firozkhan
(BJ Name of Father: Saeed Khan Pathan
(CJ Birth Date/Year : ................. .
(DJ Nationality : Indian
(E) Passport No .............. Dt . .............. .
(F) Occupation : Business
(G) Address : 15, Shukan Residency, 2"'1 floor, Opp. Sona[
Cinema, Vejalpur Road, Ahmedabad City.
7. Name, Add and details of Accused :-
(1) Teesta Setalvad Resi. Nirant, Juhu Tara Roc(d, Mumbai
(2) Javed Anand (Husband). Resi. Ni rant, Juhu Tara Road,
Mumbai
.
·
E
F
G
H
782
SUPREME COURT REPORTS
[2017] 12 S.C.R.
A
(3) Tanveer Jafri
(4) Chairman of GB.Soc. Salim Sandhi.
(5) Secretary of GB.Soc. Firoz Guizar MPathan and others
who come out after inquiry.
B
8. Reason for late information :-
c
D
E
F
9. Narration of Property if lost or theft
10. Total price of theft
11. Accident (if death) death :- ..... .
12. Details of 1-" Information :- ........ .
The facts of this case are such that as mentioned on above
date, time and place, the accused named in had conspired
and exhibited the photographs and video of Gu/berg Society
and other affected areas and the accused had put up on the
CJP and Sabrang's websites with the help of internet against
the wishes of the complainant and on the website appealed
wealthy people to deposit donation in the CJP's IDBI bank
account as well as Union Bank of Indici Account of Sabrang
and thereby obtained deposits of crores of rupees and used
the money for personal use by diverting in different institutions
with one/same address thereby indulging in wrong activities
in the name of religion and used Rs. 1,51,00,000/- for
personal use between 2009 and 2011 thereby committed
breach of trust & cheated the victims by using internet.
13. Details of act done after registration of the offence:-
Dtd. 0410112014
My name is Firozkhan Saeedkhan Pathan, Aged 41. Business.
Re.15, Shukun Residency, 2•d Floor, Opp. Sonat Cinema, .
Vejalpur Road, Ahmedabad City (M) 9974240961.
G
On being asked personally, I am giving this complaint that I
am residing at the above mentioned address with my family
since 2004 and own a Relief Cyber Cafe at Relief Road.
H
In the year 2002, I was resiaing in Bungalow No. 18, at
Gulbarg Society, Chamanpwa, Omnagar Road at
TEESTAATUL SETALVAD v. THE STATE OF GUJARAT
783
[A. M. KHANWILKAR1 .J.)
Meghaninagar, with my family at the time of Godhra Riots.
A
This bungalow was in the name of my uncle Anwarkhan
Ahmedkhan Pathan. In this bungalow the nominee was my
aunt Jetunbibi Anwarkhan Pathan. But this massacre time my
elder father Anwarkhan Ahmedkhan Pathan was killed. Thus,
this bungalow is on the name of his wife Jetunbibi Anwarkhan
B
Pathan who was residing therk. This' bungalow no. ,18 was
three storied. On the grormd floo,r in· two rooms mY elder
uncle Anwarkhan A.Pathan.and his wife were lived. And other
two rooms my younger uncle Rashidkhan A.Pathan and his
wife Jamilabanu and my grandmother Khenmnisha A. Pathan
lived in it. On the Second floor two rooms where my uncle
C
Anwarkhan s son Asiamkhan A.Pathan and his wife Suraiya
and their son Azar lived. And in other two rooms my elder
father Anwarkhan s younger son Akhtar lf.han A. Pathan and
his wife Sajedabanu and th.eir son Sadab and daughter Farin
resided . . On the third floor, 1 myself, my father and my mothe1;
D
Jehunnissa and my younger brother lmtiyazkhan Saeedkhan
Pathan were residing. In the yrar 2002, after Godhra Incident,.
our Gulbarg Socie~v too was burnt by anti-social elements
and 68 persons. killed including my grand mother Kherunnisha .
A. Pathan Aged 80 and my uncle Anwark(!an A. Pathan Aged
70, my mother Johurannisha Saeedkhan.Pathan <;1ged 57, my
E
uncles wife Jamilabanu Rashidkhan Pathan aged 45 and my
elder father Anwarkhan s son Akhtarkhan A. Pathan and his
wife Sahedabanu Akhtarkhan and his son Sadabkhan
A.Pathan. We lived at Dariyakhan Ghummat, Shahibaug relief
camp for three months. At that time Raiskhan Azizkhan Pathan -F
and Teesta Setawad met us and told that they run one NGO
. and had taken an interview. They told that they would publish
the interview in their magazine namely Communalism Combat.
and would help you economically andlegallyand also assured
of help whenever needed. I did not know Raiskhan and Tees/a
Seta/wad before this time. After that, we have taken a flat on
G
rent at Rakhial and live there for one year, and then, in the
year 2004, we lived in a flat wliich on rent, at Juhap1ira for
one and half yeai: And after that we lived in Ambar tower
flat No.28, taken on rent and lived for one and half year
there. After that in the 2007 lived in Firozalla, Nr. Vejalpur
H
784
A
B
c
D
E
F
G
H
SUPREME COURT REPORTS
[2017] 12 S.C.R.
and then in the 2010, we shifted 15. Shukun Residency, 2"d
floor. Opp. Sonat Cinema, Vejalpur with my family. After
Godhra Riots, we organized programme for paying our tribute
to our departed souls at Gulbarg Society on the 2811t Feb every
year and read Quran there. At this time, one NGO CJP's Ms.
Setalvad arrived from Mumbai assured support in the Gu/berg
Society '.s case. This Teesta Setalvad helped us till the trial
went on. She helped us on(v for the trial case and not
economically.
Then in the year 2007, Teesta Setalvad's man one Raiskhan
A. Pathan, resident of Mumbai and at present residing in 4jit
mill compoimd, Ajit Residency flat, at Rakhial. They told us
that we lived in a rental house and are tired of paying rent
since 2002. So, went to sell Gulbarg Society, then Raiskhan
told us that he has to talk with her and then reply us. After
some time we the members of society were went at MlvL
Tirmizi 's office which is at Mirzapur and arranged a meeting
there. In this meeting, Gu/barg Socie(v members, Raiskhan
Pathan, Teesta Seta/wad and MM. Tirmizi were present. When
Rais khan told Tees ta Setalvad that the members of the Gulbarg
Society wanted to sell their houses, she got angry at Raiskhan
and told us that we all should not indulge in selling the society
and informed that she would handle it in her own way and
asked Raiskhan to leave the office. Thereafter Ms. Setalvad
organised a meeting of the members of the society and
informed chairman, secretary to make a survey of Then a
matting held the members of the society and told that chairman
and secretai:v surveyed the society and expressed her wish to
make a museum at this place. 1 will pay you the value of your
houses within a month.
After this, in 2008, on 28.2.208, when all of us members and
residents of the Gu/berg Society gathered there to
commemorate the dead, Teesta Setalvad had also visited and
held a meeting. At this meeting affected persons following
Godhra fi'om Naroda Gaam, Queishi Yunusmiya and Odh
village's Anwarmiyan and Saeed Radeeq Ahmed and Hasan
Khan Pathan and Yusuf Vora and Jaffer Khan Pathan as
also affected persons from Nroda Patiya, Sardarpura,
TEESTA ATUL SETALVAD v. THE STATE OF GUJARAT
785
[A. M. KHANWILKAR, J.]
Visnagar (Deepda Darwaza), and Pandharwada were also
present at the meeting. Every year since 2007 Teesta Setalvad
held meetings calling affected persons and media persons
and made CDs of the opinions of affected persons and their
plight and talked of making a museum there. At this meeting,
A
son of former MP Ahsan Jafri, Tanvir Jafri was also there
B
and spoke of putting a statute of his father Ahsan Jafri and
building a Museum there.
Then on 28.2.2009, a meeting of the members and residents
of Gufherg society and other victims from all over Gujarat
and the media and other important people was held when all
members of the society had told her that you had said in the
2007 meeting that within a month we would he paid. Until
now no money has been paid. Hence pay us the money, we
said. She said that we are collecting jimds and as soon as
fimds are collected we will he paid, we were informed. Then,
c
in the years 2010 and 201l again, on 28.2.2002, she D
organized functions when also n:zembers had asked questions,
but she had made excused and not given. the money.
On 28.2.2012, this Teesta Setalvad organised a larger. well
planed programme at Gu/berg Society where the affected
persons of riots, medias persons and Muslim leaders had E
gathered. At that time, all over Gu/berg society, photos of
dead persons on a Projector were shown. Banners displayed
showed as if the Museum had been created. A large stage
was made a Shobha Mudgal, a famous classical artist was
called and a programme was held. Members of our society
had opposed this and said that since you had not given any
monies to the members and falsely projected that you had
made a museum and collected donations, since then, strong
opposition between society members and Teesta Setalvad
began. Hence Teesta Setalvad took Tanvir Jafri, and the
Chairman and the Secretary into her confidence and in a
confidential meeting resolved that any persons who are
members of the society could sell sale their houses to any
persons of their choice regardless of caste or religion at the
price of your choosing. Now none of the built homes will be
used by us for the Museum. The resolution that was passed
F
G
H
786
A
B
c
D
E
F
G
H
SUPREME COURT REPORTS
[2017] 12 S.C.R.
f.?y which other society members had opposed it. In our
opposition we had said that for 12 years since the incident
took place, and since 2007, you had on the excuse of a
Museum being built amassed crores of rupees and this fimd
you did not use for the Society or for riot victims, you have
not paid any monies. You have breached our trust and cheated
us. Along with this Teesta Setalvad and resident of Surat,
Tanveer Ahsan Hussain Jafri together, from 2007 to 2012
conducted programmes, made CDs and sent to her sister,
Nargis Jafri and his younger brother Zuber who lived in USA
via email and through hard copies. There, they organised
seminars, showed CD's and wrong/idly collected funds and
collected crores of rupees for this. At these seminars, now
and then, Tees ta Setalvad, Tanveer Jafri, as also their persons,
Father Cedric Prakash and R.B. Shree Kumar (Reid. D.GP.)
had visited America.
This Teesta Setalvad and Tanveer Jafri and other persons
jointly planned a conspiracy of gathering photos etc of
affected persons of Gu/berg Society and other affected
locations and displayed these on the CJP and Sabrang website
and on internet against our desires.
Then the bank account numbers of the CJP. Institute Bank Al
c. in IDBI No.014104000204736 and the Sabrang Bank
Account-@ Union Bank of India No.369102010802885 wete
displayed on the internet and appeals for the fund and crores ·
of rupees were collected in the bank accounts. This fimd
was fraudulently used for their personal expenses through
the creation of different organisations at the same address.
We got this information under an RT! application:- that the
CJP NGO had, from 2009 to 2011 had collected Rs.63 (sixtythree) lakhs and the Sabrang Tn1sf had collected Rs.88 (eightyeight) lakhs from local and foreign countries. The members
of these trusts not amassed these funds through
m(srepresentation but also used these fimds for· personal
reasons. These funds were not used for the benefit of the
members of Gu/berg Society. Apart from this also, crores of
rupees have also been amassed by them and used for personal
reasons and committed a breach of trust and cheating with
affected persons.
TEESTA ATUL SETALVAD v. THE STATE OF GUJARAT
787
[A. M. KHANWILKAR, J.]
Therefore, a complaint against Teesta Setalvad, her husband A
Javed Anand, who both live ai "Nirant' bungalow, Jzih11 Tara·•
Road, Mumbai and Tanveer Jafti, ai1d Chairma1i of Gu/berg
Society, Sali,mbhai Sandhi and Secretary Firoz Guizar
Mohammed Pathan and others who may be involved after
investigatioris, this is my complaint for a detailed and lawji1!
B
investigation. The persons unknown are named as etc. This
complaint is true as per my knowledge which has been read
and understood by me m;d thereafter signed. I have received
a copy of my complaint.
Sd-
(C.B.Gamit)
(P.S.J. Crime)
(S.O.G. Crime)
Ahmedabad City.
Sd- Asst.-
· Adi. Chief Metro Magistrate Court-11 A 'bad."
7. Simultaneously, with the registration of the aforementioned FIR,
.. the Assistant Commissioner of Police, Cyber Cell, Crime Branch,
Ahmedabad issued instructions to the Union Bank of India, Juhu Tara
Branch, Mumbai and IDBI, Khar Branch, Mumbai to seize the stated
bank accounts pertaining to Sabrang Trust, CJP Trust, Teesta Atul
Setal vad and Javad Anand, appellants herein. Intimation about the seizure
of concerned bank accounts was given to the concerned Magistrate on
21" January, 2014. On the applications for de-freezing of the concerned
bank account filed before the Metropolitan Magistrate Court No. XI,
Ahmedabad, it was mainly contended that - the Investigating Officer
had failed to comply with the mandate of Section 102 ofCr.P.C., by not
informing the Magistrate of the action of freezing of the accounts; the
Investigating Officer has not given prior notice to the account holders
before freezing of their bank accounts; the appellant CJP Trust, in any
case, is not named as accused in the alleged crime and is not associated
with the same in any manner; the concerned Trust maintains proper
accounts which arc duly audited and there is no trace of any illegality
committed in respect ofrcccipt and expenditure; the contributions made
c
D
E
F
G
by foreign fund is after due approval of the Competent Authority; the
H
788
A
B
c
D
E
F
II
G
H
SUPREME COURT REPORTS
[2017) 12 S.C.R.
attempt of freezing of the bank accounts of the Trust and also personal
accounts of the Trustees, in particular private appellants, was motivated
and an attempt to stifle them from carrying on their social welfare
activities; the bank accounts had no causal connedion with the commission
ofalleged offence in respect of which investigation was in progress and
more so, not even one donor has come forward to question the intention
or activity of the concerned Trust. These contentions have been duly
considered by the Magistrate whilst rejecting the application submitted
by the appellants for de-freezing the accounts. The Magistrate took the
view that the private applicants were the Trustees of the Trusts whose
bank accounts have been seized and preliminary investigation revealed
substantial discrepancies in the accounts, including that the accounts of
the Trusts were not audited for the relevant period ·and the transactions
and huge withdrawals from the bank accounts raised suspicion regarding
the commission of the alleged offence. It is further held that since the
investigation was at the nascent stage and was in progress and the private
appellants were seemingly not cooperating with the investigation, the
prayer for lifting of seizure of the bank accounts cannot be acceded to.
Accordingly, the applications came to be rejected vide a common order
dated 28'h November, 2014 by the Additional Chief Metropolitan
Magistrate Court No.XI, Ahmedabad.
8. Before the High Court, more or less similar arguments were
canvassed on behalf of the appellants. The High Court in paragraph I 5
of the impugned judgment adv.erted to the gist of contentions recorded
by the Magistrate as under:
"15. The questions which raised in the Lower Court, as
submitted by the learned counsel for the petitioners, were (A)
That seizer of accounts was illegal in absence of prior notice,
(B) The action of freezing of accounts in absence required
intimation to the Magistrate concerned was illegal, (CJ The
accounts could not have been freezed for all times to come
and the object of the investigation could have been achieved
by requiring the petitioners to execute a bond to compensate
the State, if at all the case against the petitioners was made
out, (D) Freezing of accounts could have been resorted on(v
as a sequel to crime and not for the purpose of discovery of
crime, (E) The accounts had nothing to do with proceeds of
crime and therefore continued seizure was unnecessary. (F)
TEESTA ATUL SETALVAD v. THE STATE OF GUJARAT
789
[A. M. KHANWILKAR, J.]
That accounts were Foreign Contribution Regularization
A
Accounts (FCRA) under the authorization of the Home
Ministry, and therefore, local police had no authority to freeze
them."
9. The High Court then adverted to the arguments of the appellants
as advanced, in paragraphs 16 to 24. The first point was about the
absence of prior notice to the appellants before the freezing of the bank
accounts, which has been rejected following the Bombay High Court
Full Bench decision in the case of Vinoskumar Ramacha11dran
Va/luvar V. Tlte State of Maharashtra'. The High Court then noted
the contention of the appellants that the Audit Reports of the accounts
concerned were submitted to various authorities, like Charity
Commissioner, Home Ministry etc., who neither raised any objection
nor found any irregularity in the accounts. Further, different contributories
including Human Resources Development Ministry, have contributed to
the corpus of the Trust and none of the contributors or donors have ever
raised any objection about the activities of the appellants. The High Court
also noted that even United Nations Organization was one of the donors.
For obtaining donations from the said organizations, strict procedure and
formalities arc required to be complied with and have been so complied
with and only thereafter the donation amount has been released. The
concerned authorities did not find any irregularities in the transactions in
question. It was then contended that freezing of accounts cannot be for
indefinite period. The appellants can be allowed to operate the accounts
upon execution of a bond and that would subserve the irlterest ofj ustiee.
The appellants also contended that the accounts were re-audited by the
Chartered Accountants and no irregularity or illegality has been found
during the said re-audit. In case there is any illegality or irregularity, the
same can be deciphered by examining the entries in the books of accounts
and the vouchers in the relevant documents which are already furnished
to the Investigating Agency. It was contended that freezing of the
accounts of the Trust, in particular, operated for receiving donations under
B
c
D
E
F
the FCRA, was motivated and to completely paralyse the working of
~
G
Trust. It was contended that there can be no presumption that the
use of the funds from the accounts in question was not for private purpose.
It was also contended that the appellants and their chartered accountants
1 (2011) Cri.L.J. 2522 (Born.)
H
790
SUPREME COURT REPORTS
[2017] 12 S.C.R.
A
and auditors were extending full cooperation with the investigation. The
principal argument of the appellants was that the power under Section
102 ofCr.P.C. could not have been exercised as no material \\'.as produced
by the investigating authority to support the fact that the property in
question :was parted with to indicate the commission of alleged offence
B
of cheating or breach of trust or for that matter forgery of the record.
These contentions were countered by the respondents. The High Court
then considered the relevant material placed on record and the affidavits
filed by the investigating authority highlighting the suspicious transactions
done fromthe stated bank accounts and the conduct of the appellants,
including the incorrect statements made by the appellants on oath in the
C
proceedings before the Court regarding the maintenance of the accounts
of the two Trusts. The High Court also adverted to the decision of the
coordinate Bench while rejecting the anticipatory bail application
. preferred by the appellants and inference drawn in support of the
conclusion as to why the prayer for anticipatory bail should be rejected.
D
The'.same has been extracted in paragraphs 37 and 38 of the impugned
judgment, which read thus:
E
F
G
H
"3 7. From the aforestated facts this Court drew following
inference thus:
'Thus, from the above, it is evident that the accounts were
also noi audited for .a long period of time, and it is only when
the FIR was registered wherein serious allegations of
misappropriation of lacs of rupees have been alleged that all
of a sudden the accounts from April, 2003 to March, 2008
were got audited in the year 2014. ·
38. On the basis of the facts available on record as aforestated,
this Court assigned the reasons as to why custodial
investigation was necessary; they were as under:
(a) From the accounts of the Sabrang Trust and CJP, a total
amount of Rs.J,69,84,669=00 have been transferred to the
Sabrang Communication & Publishing Pvt Ltd, a company
. owned by the petitioners.
(b) From the accounts of the Sabrang Trust and ofCJP, an
amount ofRs.46,91,250=00 and Rs.28,34,804=00 were
tran.iferred to the personal accounts of the petitioner nos. 1
& 2 respectively.
TEESTA ATUL SETALVAD v. THE STATE OF GUJARAT
791
[A. M. KHANWILKAR, J.]
(c) From the accounts of the Sabrang Trust and CJP, the A
petitioners have withdrawn Rs.1,08,73,782=00 as cash.
(d) From the accounts of the Sabrang Trust and CJP, the
petitioners have paid Rs.29,66,121=00 towards Credit Card
payments.
(e) The petitioners have endeavored to explain the credit card B
payment running into ,lakhs of rupees by stating that all such
personal expenditure were repaid to the NGO Page 40 of 48
. HC-NJC Page 40 of 48 Created On Fri May 06 16:33:26 lST
. 2016 RICR.RA/24912015 JUDGMENT accounts. This
employment of public donations to personal use needs to be c
investigated. The petitioners have not submitted any debitF
credit .vouchers and/or cheques details to prove their
statement.
(f)
Upon
scrutiny
of · the
saving
accounts
Nos.014I04000142595 & 01410400014260I of the D
petitioner nos. I & 2 with the IDBI, Mumbai, it was noticed
that both the accounts were opened on 30.04.2005. The FCRA
permission from MHA for CJP and Sabrang Trust was granted
in November, 2007. Proposal to purchase the Gttlbarg Society
was mooted bypetitioner no.I orally in Decembe1; 2007 and
formally in January, 2008, Resolution was passed by the
E
society accepting her proposal in June, 2008 and thereafter
the advertisements commenced and monies started pouring
in. Further no substantial i1icome of any nature, except ji·om
the CJP and Sabrang Trust, is noticed in both the above
mentioned personal accounts of the petitioners, which were
F
further invested in fixed deposits, shares and mutual fimds
such as ICICI Prudential, Reliance Capital, Kotak Mahindra,
.Franklin Templeton etc.
·
(g) The donations received by the Sabrang Trust and CJP are
utilized for personal purposes.
G .
(h) Receipt of donations to the tune of Rs.29,20,000=00 from
Ashoka Foundation, Arlington, USA, in the personal accounts
of Ms. Setalvad and Rs.6,05,442=00 as foreign remittance
in Ms. Setalvads personal account.
H
792
SUPREME COURT REPORTS
[2017] 12 S.C.R.
A
(i) Monthly withdrawal of salary by both the accused from
all the six accounts of CJP, Sabrang Trust and Sabrang
Communications.
B
c
D
E
F
G
H
It also appears that the custodial interrogation is necessary
for the following reasons :
I. The case of the prosecution is based on cogent documentary
evidence received from the Charity Commissione1; Mumbai,
Ministry of Home Affairs, New Delhi, various Banks, etc.
Financial details received from these authorities require
detailed investigation.
2. The petitioners have never remained present before any
investigating agency and have employed evety means to avoid
the due process of law. The petitioners seek to avoid custodial
interrogation by the investigating authorities by dismissing
cogent documentary evidence as accounting jugglery.
Approximately 44% of the total donations received in the
Sabrang Trust and approximate(v 35% of the total donations
received in the CJP, were transferred to their personal
accounts.
3.