M/s AP Product vs State Of Telangana

In these two writ petitions the petitioners challenge freezing of their bank accounts in exercise of power under Section 102(1) of Code of

Criminal Procedure (Cr.P.C.). As the issue in the writ petitions is same, they are heard and considered together.

Facts of these cases, to the extent relevant, are hereunder:

W.P.No.13363 of 2020:

On 03.01.2020, person by name Sri Ved Prakash Agarwal lodged a complaint in Central Crime Station, Police Control Room, Hyderabad,

alleging that a fake will document stated to have been executed by late Anand Swaroop was brought into existence by forging the signature of

late Anand Swaroop. Based on the contents of complaint, Crime No.2/2020 was registered under Sections 420, 465, 467, and 468 of Indian

Penal Code (for short, ‘IPC’). During the course of investigation, the complainant lodged petition dated 19.03.2020 alleging that

accused no.1, petitioner no.2 herein, illegally opened bank account in IDBI Bank in the name of A.P. Products and illegally diverting huge

amounts from other bank accounts of A.P. Products. The Investigating Officer addressed letters to the Branch Managers of 15 banks, where

accounts were opened and operated in the name of late Anand Swaroop, his firm, etc., and requested the Banks to freeze the bank accounts.

According to the Police, on 08.05.2020, by way of electronic mail, the Court of Metropolitan Magistrate was informed about the freezing of

bank accounts and the intimation memo was filed on 17.08.2020 in the court of XII Additional Chief Metropolitan Magistrate at Nampally.

W.P.No.15056 of 2020:

- On 16.03.2020, complaint was filed by person by name Sri G.Prasad Rao alleging that the incumbent Secretary of Singareni Collieries

Officers Co-op. House Building Society Limited illegally, unauthorizedly selling the plots and illegally diverted the proceeds of the sale

transactions to his private bank account. On further investigating into the crime, the Investigating Officer, prima facie, found that a part of sale

proceeds was deposited in his personal bank account and on 18.06.2020 he has ordered seizure of bank account No.378268809396 in the

State Bank of India, Saraswathi Nagar Branch. The Investigating Officer filed memo in the Court of VII Additional Chief Metropolitan

Magistrate at Nampally intimating freezing the bank account, which was taken on file by the Court on 05.10.2020.

- Thus, in W.P.No.13363 of 2020 the decision to freeze the bank account was issued on 19.03.2020, and intimation on freezing of bank

account was actually given to Chief Metropolitan Magistrate on 08.05.2020. In W.P.No.15056 of 2020, bank account was ordered to be

freezed on 18.06.2020. Intimation to jurisdictional Magistrate was given on 05.10.2020. This is the time line on which the issue in these two

cases rests.

- According to learned counsel Sri Srinivas, as mandated by Section 102(3) Cr.P.C., immediately after freezing of bank account intimation has

to be furnished to the jurisdictional Magistrate, whereas in these two cases, intimation was not given immediately and, therefore, the decisions

to freeze the bank accounts are vitiated on that ground alone and the freezing orders are not sustainable in law. According to the learned

counsel, compliance with Section 102(3) of Cr.P.C., is mandatory and non-compliance thereof would vitiate the orders freezing bank

accounts.

Before exercising the power under Section 102 Cr.P.C., the Police Officer has to assess the need to freeze the bank account and after

formation of an opinion, supported by the reasons, he can freeze, whereas in the instant cases, no reasons are assigned before ordering for

freezing of bank accounts. He would submit that the respondent-Police cannot improve in the form of counter-affidavit to support their stand

of the reasons for freezing. He would further submit that material on record would clearly show that freezing of bank account is not on

account of necessity to freeze as assessed by the Investigating Officer during the course of investigation, but was made on a request by the

complainants and the same is not permissible in law.

Learned counsel for the petitioners further submitted that bank accounts freezed by the respondent-Police have no direct link to the

offences alleged.

He would further submit that mere registration of a crime is no ground to freeze bank accounts. He would further submit that due to

freezing of bank accounts, the work of A.P. Products (1st petitioner in W.P.No.13363 of 2020) adversely affected and the 1st petitioner is

unable to meet the day-to-day financial needs of the firm. Similarly, freezing of the bank account in W.P.No.10565 of 2020 has adversely

affected the functioning of the petitioner society.

In support of his contentions on illegality in freezing the bank accounts, learned counsel for the petitioners placed reliance on following

decisions.

 Sk. Salim vs. the State of West Bengal AIR 1957 SC 692;

 Keshav Nilkanth Joglekar vs. The Commissioner of Police, Greater Bombay AIR 1957 SC 28;

 Alla China Apparao and others vs. State of Andhra Pradesh 2003(1) ACR 34 (SC);

 Rao Mahmood Ahmed Khan vs. Rambir Singh and others AIR 1995 SC 2195;

 Navalshankar Ishwarlal Dave and others vs. State of Gujarat and others AIR 1994 SC 1496;

 Gopal Mondal vs. State of West Bengal AIR 1957 SC 1807;

 Arunima Baruah vs. Union of India (UOI) and others 2007(3) ALLMR (SC) 811;

 Vinoskumar Ramachandran Valluvar and others vs. The State of Maharashtra and others I (2012) BC 5.

According to the learned Assistant Government Pleader, bank accounts are freezed as part of the investigation into the crimes reported

against the petitioners and are the crime properties. Petitioners ought to have approach the jurisdictional Magistrate seeking to grant interim

custody of the property seized and, therefore, when an alternative remedy is available, writ petition is not maintainable. He points out that the

Police force was involved in various aspects relating to pandemic and, therefore, there was delay in intimating to the jurisdictional Magistrates

about the freezing of bank accounts and it was not intentional. He would submit that if warranted the Police would explain the reasons for

delay to the trial Courts. He would further submit that investigation is still going on and prima facie case is made out against the petitioners

and, therefore, de-freezing of bank accounts at this stage would greatly hamper the investigation. He would further submit that what is alleged

by the petitioners is a curable defect and, therefore, delay cannot inure to the benefit of the petitioners to de-freeze the crime property even

before the investigation is completed.

(l) On the issue of alternative remedy, learned Assistant Government Pleader placed reliance on the decision of this Court in W.P.No.7044 of

2019 dated 04.07.2019 and the decision of this Court in Govind Raju Sami vs. State of Telangana and others 2019 (3) ALT 139.

(m) Sri P.Shiv Kumar, learned counsel appearing for unofficial respondents in W.P.No.13363 of 2020 submitted that based on the forged will,

said transactions were made and illegally some bank accounts were opened to divert the money belonging to the 1st petitioner firm, and if the

petitioners are allowed to operate the bank accounts, they will misuse the funds belonging to the 1st petitioner firm, frustrating the litigation

pending before the competent courts. As the investigation is yet to be completed on the allegation of forgery, de-freezing the bank accounts at

this stage would hamper the investigation. According to the learned counsel, ‘forthwith’ does not mean immediate, and intimation to the

competent Court ought to be made within a reasonable time. Having regard to the present pandemic situation and lockdown of Courts, the

intimation given by the respondent-Police cannot be said as not within a reasonable time. He would submit that delay is not fatal and cannot

invalidate the freezing of bank accounts. He would submit that the word ‘forthwith’ has to be liberally construed. He would submit that

as held by the Division Bench of this Court in Mohd.Maqbool Ahmed @ Mateen and another vs. The Deputy Commissioner of Police, Special

Investigation Team, Hyderabad and others 1996 (3) ALT 215 (D.B.), the issue on illegality in freezing the bank account can be agitated

before the concerned Courts during the trial and freezing of bank account is not vitiated on the ground of delay in intimation to the concerned

Magistrate.

(n) According to the learned counsel for petitioners Sri Vedula Srinivas, in Mohd.Mazbool Ahmed, no issue was framed and decided on the

aspect of delay in intimation of seizure of property and what is relied upon are only observations and, therefore, are not binding on this Court.

Further, more than two months time taken by the Police to intimate the freezing of bank account cannot be said as reasonable time. No

reasons are assigned for such delay. Perforce, as freezing of bank accounts are vitiated on the face of it, petitioners need not be compelled to

avail the remedy provided by Sections 451 and 457 of Cr.P.C.

(o) The issue for consideration is whether delay in reporting the seizure to the concerned Magistrate vitiated the seizure of bank accounts of

the petitioners?

(p) As investigation into both crimes is not completed, in exercise of power of judicial review this Court is not entering into merits of the

allegations reported in the crimes. Therefore, the issue considered is on the aspect of delay in reporting to the concerned Magistrate and not

on the power of Investigating Officers to freeze the bank accounts.

(q) To appreciate the respective submissions, it is necessary to understand the scope of Section 102 Cr.P.C. It reads as under:

“S.102. Power of police officer to seize certain property.

 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.

 Such police officer, if subordinate to the officer in charge of a police station, shall forthwith report the seizure to that officer.

 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, 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.â€​

(r) It is beyond pale of doubt that the bank account is also the property and falls within the ambit of Section 102 of Cr.P.C. From the plain

reading of this section, it is apparent that property can be seized by the Police Officer if it is alleged or suspected to have been stolen, or

which may be found under circumstances which create suspicion of the commission of offence. It is part of investigation into the crime. The

Investigating Officer can seize the property, which is suspected to have been involved in crime, at any stage of the investigation.

(s) Once it is seized, it is the duty of the Investigating Officer to preserve the said property so that evidence is not tampered/destroyed

frustrating the investigation and trial. In Navada Properties Private Limited Vs State of Maharastra 2019 SCC Online SC 124, 7the

Hon’ble Supreme Court was considering the scope of Section 102 of Criminal Procedure Code, particularly, what is meant by ‘any

property’. To the extent relevant paragraph 20 reads as under:

“20……… Equally important, for the purpose of interpretation is the scope and object of Section 102 of the Code, which is to help and

assist investigation and to enable the police officer to collect and collate evidence to be produced to prove the charge complained of and set up

in the charge sheet. The Section is a part of the provisions concerning investigation undertaken by the police officer. After the charge sheet is

filed, the prosecution leads and produces evidence to secure conviction. Section 102 is not, per se, an enabling provision by which the police

officer acts to seize the property to do justice and to hand over the property to a person whom the police officer feels is the rightful and true

owner. This is clear from the objective behind Section 102, use of the words in the Section and the scope and ambit of the power conferred on

the Criminal Court vide Sections 451 to 459 of the Code. The expression ‘circumstances which create suspicion of the commission of any

offence’ in Section 102 does not refer to a firm opinion or an adjudication/finding by a police officer to ascertain whether or not ‘any

property’ is required to be seized. The word ‘suspicion’ is a weaker and a broader expression than ‘reasonable belief’ or

‘satisfaction’. The police officer is an investigator and not an adjudicator or a decision maker…………...â€​

(emphasis supplied)

(t) Section 102(3) of Cr.P.C., requires the Police Officer concerned to forthwith report the seizure of property to the Magistrate having

jurisdiction. Learned counsel for petitioner focussed on the word ‘forthwith’ employed in sub-section (3) of Section 102 Cr.P.C. to

contend that soon after bank accounts were frozen concerned Magistrates were not informed and therefore freezing was vitiated.

(u) There are two aspects to the issue. Firstly, what is meant by ‘forthwith’ and secondly, even if there was admitted delay will that

vitiate seizure per se.

FORTHWITH:

There is no decision of Hon’ble Supreme Court and this Court on what is meant by the word ‘forthwith’ employed in Section 102

(3). The word ‘forthwith’ is employed in several enactments. Scope of this word as employed in Maintenance of Internal Security Act,

1971; Preventive Detention Act, 1950; Section 157 (1) of Cr.P.C.; Gujarat Prevention of Anti-Social Activities Act, 1985 was considered by

the Hon’ble Supreme Court. From these precedents, guidance can be taken on enunciation of law on the word ‘forthwith’.

21.1 The word ‘forthwith’ is of elastic import (Kesher Nilkanth Joglekar Vs. the Commissioner of Police, Greater Bombay â€

AIR 1957 SC 28). The legislative mandate cannot be measured mathematically in terms of seconds, minutes and hours. Administrative

exigencies may on occasions render a post-haste compliance impossible and, therefore, a reasonable allowance has to be made for

unavoidable delays. The rule of strict construction is no justification for holding that the act be performed ‘forthwith’ must be performed

the very instant afterwards without any intervening interval of time or that it should be performed simultaneously with the other act. “10.

Thus, ‘forthwith’ does not connote a precise time and even if the statute under consideration requires that the report shall be made

forthwith, its terms shall have been complied with if the report is made without available or unreasonable delay.†[Sk.Salim vs. The State of

West Bengal â€" AIR 1975 SC 602]. “This apart, it is a matter of common experience that there has been tremendous rise in the crime

resulting into enormous volume of work, but increase in the Police force has not been made in the same proportion. In view of the aforesaid

factors, the expression ‘forthwith’ within the meaning of Section 157(1) of Cr.P.C., obviously cannot mean that the prosecution is

required to explain every hour’s delay in sending the first information report to the Magistrate, of course, the same has to be sent with

reasonable despatch, which would obviously mean within a reasonable possible time in the circumstances prevailingâ€​

[paragraph-9, Alla China Apparao and others vs. State of Andhra Pradesh â€"AIR 2002 SC 3648.] The meaning of the word

‘forthwith’ is synonymous of the word immediately, which means with all reasonable quickness, speed and expedition, prompt time with

a sense of urgency, without any unavoidable delay. No hard and fast rule can be laid nor a particular period be prescribed. [Paragraph-9, Rao

Mahmood Ahmed Khan vs. Ranbir Singh â€" AIR 1995 SC 219;5 Paragraph-9, Nevalshankar Ishwarlal Deva and others vs. State of Gujarat

â€" AIR 1994 SC 1496].

21.2 From the basketful of decisions on what is meant by ‘forthwith’ it can be culled out that it means ‘as soon as may be’,

‘with reasonable speed and expedition’, with a sense of urgency’ and ‘without any unavoidable delay’. In other words, it

does not mean instantaneous, the moment when a decision is made/ simultaneous.

DELAY:

In this backdrop of how the word ‘forthwith’ is understood, it is necessary to consider whether there was inordinate delay in

reporting the seizure of bank accounts and whether the delay vitiates the seizure.

In W.P.No.13363 of 2020, the allegation of the complainant is that based on a forged will, the petitioners are diverting the money kept in

the bank accounts of the firm to separate bank accounts opened by the 2nd petitioner and misusing the said money for personal gain affecting

adversely other family members. Police have to investigate whether there was such diversion of funds from the accounts of first petitioner to

the bank accounts of the second petitioner.

In W.P.No.10565 of 2020, the allegation is that person acting as Secretary of the Co-op Society without authorization sold house plots

belonging to the society and a portion of the sale transaction is diverted into personal bank account. Police have to investigate whether there

was such diversion.

In both cases, Police suspect the diversion of money of first petitioner firm in W.P.No.13363 of 2020 and the money of the society in

W.P.No.10565 of 2020 to the other accounts of the petitioners. The investigation is not completed. It is not ascertained whether there was

diversion of money, if so, how much. Thus, suspected properties have to be protected from destruction, wiping out evidence and swindling

away the money, frustrating the investigation. Thus, at this stage, defreezing the bank accounts might cause hindrance to investigation. In

exercise of equitable and discretionary jurisdiction, Court cannot invite a situation that will impinge upon unearthing/preventing crime and

frustrate the investigation. When Court is confronted with the claim against defreezing the bank account on the ground of delay in reporting to

the Magistrate about freezing account vis-Ã -vis the suspicion of diversion of money directly attributable to crimes, the Court has to lien in

favour of allowing the Police Officer to continue his investigation and not to interfere with his decision to freeze the bank accounts per se.

Further no, right of petitioners’ is infringed, except, they were denied operating their bank accounts for a limited period. This is a

necessary concomitant when the concerned bank accounts are suspected to have been involved in pending crimes. Of course, caveat is

decisions to freeze bank accounts must be bona fide, not intending to harass the accused, must be in compliance of Section 102 of Cr.P.C.

But these are matters for consideration by the concerned Magistrate as and when an application is moved before him to defreeze the bank

accounts.

Further statute vests power in the Investigating Officer to seize property suspected to have been involved in crime. Intimation to the

concerned Magistrate follows the seizure. Power to seize is plenary where as intimation to the Magistrate is incidental to exercise of such

power. Thus, defect in intimation is curable and mere delay in intimation does not vitiate the seizure of property per se.

In Mohd. Maqbool Ahmed (supra), the Division Bench considered whether delay in reporting vitiates freezing per-se. It was urged that

sub-section (3) of Section 102 Cr.P.C., was not complied. The Division Bench held as under:

“8. In two eventualities, a police officer, acting under Section 102(1) Cr.P.C., may seize any property (i) alleged or suspected to have been

stolen; or (ii) found under circumstances creating suspicion of commission of an offence. The finding of property need not always precede the

suspicion of commission of an offence in relation to that property. Once it is suspected by a police officer that a crime has been committed

and in the course of the investigation, he comes across any property, which is involved or suspected to have been involved or has any link with

the crime under investigation, in our view, he has power to effect seizure of that property under sub-section

of Section 102 Cr.P.C. Any other interpretation would be totally unrealistic and frustrate the attempts of the investigating agency to

effectively detect the crimes.â€​

28.1. The Division Bench affirmed the view taken by the Madras High Court in Bharat Overseas Bank vs. Minu Publications 1988 (2) Crimes

The relevant portion of the judgment of the Division Bench reads as under:

“On the question as to the failure on the part of the police officer to report the seizure to the jurisdictional Magistrate as required by Sub-

section (3) of Section 102 Cr.P.C, the learned Judge held:

Not every flaw in investigation, would invalidate proceedings. It would be premature now, to judge prejudice caused to the accused. If the

second respondent has not reported about the seizure to the Court yet, he shall do the same forthwith. In the event of a trial, it would be open

to the accused to put forward this plea of prejudice in the light of the facts available.

In our considered opinion, this is the correct legal position. So far as the present case is concerned, there is no allegation in the affidavit filed in

support of the writ petition that the requirement of Sub-section (3) of Section 102 Cr.P.C., was breached. For the first time in the reply

affidavit, this plea was taken and the learned Government Pleader contends, rightly, that the averments in the reply affidavit cannot be the

basis for the writ petition. Even assuming that mere was non-compliance of the requirement of Sub-section (3) of Section 102 Cr .P.C., in that

the police officer has not informed the jurisdictional Magistrate about the factum of seizing of the bank accounts of the petitioners herein, such

a course of action would not invalidate the order passed Under Sub-section (1) of Section 102 Cr.P.C, freezing the bank accounts. We make

it clear that it is always open to the petitioners to move the criminal Court after the charge-sheet is filed for appropriate orders as to the

handling of bank accounts and the criminal Court will pass suitable orders in the light of the fact situation.â€​

(Emphasis supplied)

Even if the contention of the learned counsel for petitioners is accepted and Court holds that there is inordinate delay in reporting to the

concerned Magistrate about the freezing of bank accounts, from the statutory scheme on investigation into crime, it is apparent that there is no

restraint imposed on the Investigating Officer to freeze the bank accounts again as long as investigation is not completed and Police suspect

illegal diversion of funds. In such circumstances, even if the Court agrees with the plea of petitioners on the aspect of delay in reporting to the

concerned Magistrates, the Court need not grant the relief.

Whenever, a crime is reported, Police are duty bound to investigate into the crime, elicit the truth in the allegations and launch prosecution,

if material gathered during investigation point out commissioning of offence alleged. At this stage of investigation, Writ Court interference is

not warranted, except in extra-ordinary circumstances where launching prosecution per se is challenged. There also the Court is required to

consider the challenge within well laid down parameters of judicial review.

At this stage, it is apt to note the observations of Hon’ble Supreme Court in State of Haryana v. Bhajan Lal - [1992 Supp (1) SCC

335]. The Hon’ble Supreme Court has pointed out that: (SCC p. 359, para 40):

“… the field of investigation of any cognizable offence is exclusively within the domain of the investigating agencies over which the courts

cannot have control and have no power to stifle or impinge upon the proceedings in the investigation so long as the investigation proceeds in

compliance with the provisions relating to investigation….â€​

Learned counsel for petitioner further contended that no opportunity was afforded before freezing the bank accounts and no reasons are

assigned.

It is settled principle of law that at the stage of investigation accused has no right of being heard and of affording prior opportunity before

a property is seized.

It is apt to note the observations of the Hon’ble Supreme Court in Union of India v. W.N. Chadha 1993 Supp (4) SCC 260:

“89……… When the investigating officer is not deciding any matter except collecting the materials for ascertaining whether a prima

facie case is made out or not and a full enquiry in case of filing a report under Section 173(2) follows in a trial before the Court or Tribunal

pursuant to the filing of the report, it cannot be said that at that stage rule of audi alteram partem superimposes an obligation to issue a prior

notice and hear the accused which the statute does not expressly recognise. The question is not whether audi alteram partem is implicit, but

whether the occasion for its attraction exists at all.

Under the scheme of Chapter XII of the Code of Criminal Procedure, there are various provisions under which no prior notice or

opportunity of being heard is conferred as a matter of course to an accused person while the proceeding is in the stage of an investigation by a

police officer.

xxx

 More so, the accused has no right to have any say as regards the manner and method of investigation. Save under certain exceptions under

the entire scheme of the Code, the accused has no participation as a matter of right during the course of the investigation of a case instituted

on a police report till the investigation culminates in filing of a final report under Section 173(2) of the Code or in a proceeding instituted

otherwise than on a police report till the process is issued under Section 204 of the Code, as the case may be. Even in cases where

cognizance of an offence is taken on a complaint notwithstanding that the said offence is triable by a Magistrate or triable exclusively by the

Court of Sessions, the accused has no right to have participation till the process is issued. In case the issue of process is postponed as

contemplated under Section 202 of the Code, the accused may attend the subsequent inquiry but cannot participate. There are various judicial

pronouncements to this effect but we feel that it is not necessary to recapitulate those decisions. At the same time, we would like to point out

that there are certain provisions under the Code empowering the Magistrate to give an opportunity of being heard under certain specified

circumstances.â€​

Therefore, the contentions of the learned counsel for petitioners that the reasons were not assigned before freezing the bank accounts and

on that ground, it is vitiated, also cannot be appreciated. After the investigation is completed, the Investigation Officer files final report before

the jurisdictional Magistrate. In the said report, he has to explain all the steps taken by him while conducting investigation. In these two cases

that stage has not reached. At this stage, it cannot be predicated that the investigation officers would not deal with freezing of bank accounts.

Reverting to crucial dates in both cases, it is seen that in W.P.No.13363 of 2020 Police Officer addressed letter dated 19.3.2020 to the

petitioners’ banks to freeze bank accounts and he has intimated the Chief Metropolitan Magistrate through e-mail on 08.09.2020 and in

W.P.No.15056 of 2020, the Police Officer ordered freezing of bank account on 18.06.2020 and he has intimated the jurisdictional Magistrate

on 05.10.2020. From March, 2020 the entire world is confronted with pandemic. Police have played key role in enforcing orders/guidelines of

the Government of India and the State Government to prevent spread of the virus, sacrificing their life for the cause of humanity. The

attention of entire police force is diverted to enforce orders/guidelines to prevent spread of virus and they are still involved in this exercise. It

is an extraordinary circumstance. During this period, it is possible to keep aside certain aspects of police functioning, and pay special attention

on pandemic related aspects. Thus, in these extraordinary circumstances, some leniency can be shown to the action of Police in not reporting

the seizure to the concerned Magistrates immediately after the seizure. As the term ‘forthwith’ has ‘elastic import’ [Keshav

Nilkanth Joglekar (supra)], and in the peculiar fact situation, the time taken to report to the concerned Magistrates can be said as reasonable

and without undue delay.

Further, whether Police Officer applied his mind and satisfied on fulfilment of ingredients of seizure are matters for consideration by trial

Court and it is permissible for the accused to raise such pleas, before the learned Magistrate but not in proceedings under Article 226 of the

Constitution of India.

Section 451 of Cr.P.C., enables the trial Court to grant interim custody pending trial. Similarly, Section 457 also vests power in the

Magistrate to deal with the property as deemed proper and necessary. An accused whose property is seized by police officer can file

application to grant interim custody. This is an effective and efficacious remedy.

Though, under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, the jurisdiction of the writ Court is very wide and all pervading wherever and

whenever, by the conduct/decision of a public authority rights of a person are infringed. But the constitutional Courts are slow in entertaining

the writ petitions where statutory scheme envisages certain procedures and aggrieved party has statutorily engrafted remedies.

In these two cases, the Police have already intimated seizing of bank account to the concerned Magistrate. As rightly pointed out by the

learned Assistant Government Pleader, Sections 451 and 457 Cr.P.C., vest power in the concerned Magistrate to grant interim custody of the

crime property and it is always open to an aggrieved person to file appropriate application for granting interim custody. The subject bank

accounts are the crime properties in the respective crimes and the seizure is already intimated to the concerned Magistrates. Therefore, it is

deemed that the property is in the custody of the said Courts. In exercise of power of judicial review, writ Court cannot trench into the

jurisdiction of the concerned Magistrate to deal with the crime property and order for release of crime property on the grounds as urged in

these writ petitions. [Mohd. Mazbool Ahmed (supra)]. As held by the Division Bench in the above case, it is always open to the petitioners to

file appropriate application before the criminal Court regarding handling of bank accounts.

It is made clear that there is no expression of opinion on merits. The discussion herein above is to consider the prayers in the writ petition.

Petitioners are at liberty to avail appropriate remedy envisaged by the Code of Criminal Procedure.

In the result, Writ Petitions are dismissed. Pending miscellaneous petitions, if any pending, stand closed.