Bharat Overseas Bank Ltd. vs Mrs. Prema Ramalingam

Janarthanam, J.—One Ramalingam, who was an officer in the Bharat Overseas Bank Limited, is said to have committed certain offences

falling u/s 467, 468, 471 and 420 I.P.C. on the lodging of a complaint, the first Respondent vis. Inspector of Police, Central Crime Branch,

Egmore, Madras, registered a case in Crime No. 790 of 1986, and took up further investigation. During the course of investigation he is said to

have seized certain incriminating documents revealing the investment of funds in financial institutions and Banks by the said Ramalingam, from out of

the funds secured by forging credit advices and credited lo the account of a fictitious person by name Rameshchand Agarwal, and thereby issued

pay orders and drafts in his name, which were later cancelled and cash obtained. The investments are stated to have been made in the names of

Petitioners 1 to 7; P-1 being his wife, P-2 being his brother, P-3 and P-4 being his daughters, P-5 and P-6 being his co-brothers and P-7 being a

third party said to have been working as a carpenter under him. The first Respondent, on coming to know of the facts and on the collection of

incriminating materials, is slated to have issued prohibitory orders to the concerned Banks and financial organisations, thereby preventing the

holders of the accounts from operating them and he also seized certain demand drafts from the fifth Petitioner. The Petitioners have now come

forward with this petition invoking the inherent jurisdiction of this Court for issuing a direction for withdrawing the prohibitory order as well as for

the release of the demand drafts seized from the fifth Petitioner.

Learned Counsel appearing for the Petitioners submits that the amounts invested in Banks and financial institutions by the Petitioners and the

drafts seized from the fifth Petitioner, belong to the Petitioners, that they cannot at all be stated to belong to Ramalingam as if they were secured by

him by the commission of various offences whilst in service, that the first Respondent Inspector of Police can have no power to issue a prohibitory

order to the Banks and financial organisations, thereby preventing the Petitioners from operating the accounts and claiming the amounts invested,

that the issuance of such order is nothing but a misuse and abuse of the process of law and that, therefore, in such circumstances, it is but proper

for the Court to issue appropriate directions for the withdrawal of the prohibitory order and for release of the demand drafts seized.

Learned Government Advocate would repel such submissions both on facts and in law.

The question whether the amounts invested in the Bank and financial institutions belong to the Petitioners or not, cannot at all be decided at this

stage, inasmuch as the Investigating Agency has collected incriminating materials pointing out that the funds available in the name of the Petitioners

were the funds secured by the said Ramalingam by the commission of offences whilst in service. This is a matter for the trial Court to decide on the

assessment of the evidence to be adduced and to give a finding thereon. As respects the other question of lifting of the freezing of accounts by the

issuance of a prohibitory order by the Investigating Agency u/s 102, Code of Criminal Procedure, it cannot be stated that the investigating Agency

is not empowered to issue such order, on the face of the decisions of Padmini Jesudurai, J. in Bharat Overseas Bank v. Minu Publications 1988

L.W. Crl. 106 wherein the learned Judge took the view that money in Bank account is properly within Section 102, Code of Criminal Procedure,

which could be seized by prohibiting the holder of the account from operating it. On reference to a Division Bench of this Court, subsequently on

the same point, the view of Padmini Jesudurai, J. was upheld. In these circumstances, the directions sought for by the Petitioners cannot be issued

and the petition deserves to be and is hereby dismissed.