1987 (5) TMI 374

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....lied with a copy of the order freezing her account, but that respondent No. 4 is refusing to permit her to operate on her account because of such a prohibitory order form respondent No. 2. 2. It is now common ground that the Deputy Commissioner of Police, Special Branch, Delhi (respondent No. 2) has issued to the Manager of the American Express Bank a letter dated 31.10.1985. The subject matter of the letter as set out in the letter reads thus :- "Regarding ceasing of account in r/o Sh. Ram Swarup s/o .... arrested in case FIR No. 216 dated 23.9.1985 under Section 3, 4 and 5, 7 of Official Secrets Act read with 120-B Indian Penal Code, P.S. Tuglaq Road, Delhi." The memorandum proceeds to state :- "I am to inform you tha....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....unsel for the respondents submits that this was an inadvertent error and tha, in the original letter sent to the bank, the name and relationship had been set out correctly. But, even granting this, the letter is reckless in setting out the reason for the issue of the prohibitory order. It purports to say that the petitioner had been arrested in connection with the offence under the Official Secrets Act and that it was, therefore necessary to prevent her form operating the account. This is admittedly not correct. Counsel for the respondents concedes that the petitioner has neither been arrested nor accused of the offences mentioned in the letter. The prohibitory order dated 31.10.1985 therefore discloses no valid or relevant reason for the d....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....fficer Cochin (AIR 1968 Kerala 208) and Dr. Gurcharan Singh v. The State of Punjab, (1978-80 PLR 514). He submitted that a perusal of the bank account of the petitioner with respondent No. 2 shows that monies had been transferred to her by her husband. According to counsel, the police had reason to believe that the funds obtained by the petitioner's husband as a result of the offences with which he is charged have been transferred to the petitioner and deposited in the above-mentioned bank account. He says that, in these circumstances, the seizure of the monies deposited with the bank can be justified by reference to Section 102 above mentioned. 6. We are not able to accept this argument. In the first place we are not quite sure whethe....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....ice suspect that some of the proceeds realised by the sale of official secrets have been passed on to the petitioner by her husband. This, we think, is not sufficient to attract Section 102 as it cannot be since that the bank account has been traced or discovered in circumstances which have made the police aware of the commission of an offence. 7. We may further point out that no justification seems to exist for "seizing" the amounts in the bank account. All that the respondents seems to want to establish from the bank account is that some funds were transferred by the petitioner's husband to her. This can be proved at any time by a comparison between the two accounts and since the entries in the accounts are always available....