JUDGMENT
R.C. Gandhi, J.
1. The revision petition has been preferred against the order dated: 26.5.2004 passed by Special; Judge, Anti-Corruption, Kashmir whereby two applications filed by the petitioner have been dismissed.
2. The brief facts of the case are: that brother of applicant namely Khazir Mohammad Tunda was posted as Manager in the Bank. His brother, petitioner Abdul Sattar Tunda and the wife of Khazir Mohmmad Tunda, Mst. Shaheena created partnership concern known as “Dawn Cottage Emporium”. It is stated that the CBI without any justification has issued direction to the bankers of the petitioner to stop operation of C/D Account No. 795 of the petitioner-Emporium in Co-operative Bank 14-Kaushalya Park Houz Khas, New Delhi. The operation of other accounts of the petitioner viz : C/D Account No. 338085-001 in HSBC Bank, ECE House. KG Marg, New Delhi, C/D Account No. 007105001777 in ICIC Bank, H/2 Green Park Ext. New Delhi. CD Account No. 102605 in Central Bank of India D/1A Green Park New Delhi -16, CD Account No. 4047-0-000-013935 in Punjab National Bank New Custom House, New Delhi, CD Account No. 5832 in J&K Bank Ltd., G-40, Cannaught Circus New Delhi, CD account No. 192 in Punjab National Bank, Dalgate, Srinagar and CD Account No. 100139 in Central Bank of India Court Road, Lal Chowk, Srinagar have also been stopped. According to him, the action of the CBI is illegal and unwarranted which has seriously affected the business of the petitioner who is in no way connected with the FIR being registered by the Bank against his brother Khazir Mohmmad Tunda.
3. Pursuant to the search warrant issued by the Special; Judge, Anti-Corruption, Kashmir on 5.3.2004 in FIR No. RCI (A)/ 2004, the officers of the CBI seized the documents in the shape of cheques and bank accounts etc.
4. The CBI resisted both the applications by filing objections stating therein that a case has been registered by the CBI (ACB) Jammu on 13.1.2004 against Shri Khazir Mohmmad Tunda, Manager Bombay Mercantile Bank, Srinagar. He was working as Branch Manager in BMC, Srinagar between June 1990 to July, 2001 and committed fraudulent transactions in the said Bank during that period. He opened several accounts fraudulently in the name of non-existent persons/parties and permitted unauthorized withdrawal. In this manner he cheated the Bank to the tune of rupees more than one crore. During the course of investigation the residential, business and office premises of the accused were searched pursuant to search warrant issued by the Special Judge Anti-Corruption Kashmir on 5.3.2004 in FIR No. RCI (A)/2004 and documents in the shape of cheques and bank accounts etc. were seized. Some incriminating documents were also seized and on scrutiny thereof it is revealed that M/S Dawn Cottage Emporium is a partnership firm of Abdul Sattar Tunda and Shaheena Malla, the brother and wife respectively of the accused Khazir Mohammad Tunda. The firm has been established in February, 1997 at Delhi around the same time when accused Khazir Mohmmad Tunda indulged in fraudulent transactions. It has also come to the notice that huge amount of the Bank has been siphoned by the accused to invest in the business at their show room at new Delhi and also invested huge amount in Real Estate, Srinagar, Goa and Delhi etc.,. During the investigation it is also revealed that the M/S Dawn Cottage Emporium and their subsidiaries viz : Group of House Boats and DC Industries have opened several accounts in different banks at Srinagar, New Delhi and Goa etc. The said bank authorities have been directed to stop operation which is allegedly siphoned amount and if it is not done, it is likely, that the amount may be further siphoned to some unknown destination, beyond the reach of the investigating agency.
5. The trial court after hearing the learned counsel for the parties has rejected the applications vide impugned order.
6. I have heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the record.
7. Mr. Qayoom, learned counsel for the petitioner, has submitted that the trial court has not rightly appreciated the facts and the law applied to the case of the petitioner for rejecting the applications. His submission is that the petitioner-firm has no concern with the accused who was working the Bank. His further submission is that the trial court should not have rejected the applications in view of the mandate contained in Section 550 of the Code of Criminal Procedure corresponding to Section 102 of the Central Code of Criminal Procedure as the money deposited in the Bank is not the property within the meaning of the said Section, liable to be seized.
8. In rebuttal Mr. Padroo, learned counsel appearing for the CBI, has submitted that there is no merit in the plea of the learned counsel for the petitioner as the stolen property has been defined under Section 410 of the R.P.C. The money deposited in the Bank by any of the relation of the accused covered with the suspicion of being collected by illegal means, can be attached and if it is not attached it could be withdrawn by the accused and ultimately if it is proved that the money has direct link with the commission of the offence committed by the accused as public officer, in that event, it would be difficult to get the money back. In support of his contention he has relied upon the judgment of the Supreme Court delivered in case titled “State of Marashtra v. Tapas D. Neogy” reported in Supreme To-day 1999(8) 149. The Supreme Court after considering the divergent views of the different High Courts has come to the following conclusions.
“Having considered the divergent views taken by different High Courts with regard top 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 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 in ‘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 of which the police officer is investigating into. The Contrary view expressed by the Kamatake, Gauhati and Allahabad Courts, does not represent the correct law”.
9. The impugned order of the trial court if not maintained will have not only the adverse effects of hampering the investigation but also siphoning the money by the accused. The said judgment has settled the proposition of law that such alleged money even if is in the name of the relation, its operation can be stopped. The money deposited in the Bank, operation whereof has been stopped by the CBI, is allegedly the siphoned money, which ultimately shall have the binding on the conduct of Khazir Mohammad Tunda as a public officer.
10. For the aforesaid reasons, the order of the trial court does not suffer from any illegality or impropriety. The revision petition, therefore, is dismissed.