HC defreezes property

However, today’s ruling does not automatically release the property and bank accounts of the accused. They will have to formally apply before a metropolitan magistrate afresh. The magistrate can decide on moveable property, but no final decision can be taken regarding the immovable property since the High Court has stayed the present order for six weeks, giving the state government time to move the apex court.

The magistrate has been directed to dispose of all applications before October 15. If the government does not secure a stay on release of property from the apex court, the magistrate’s order will be held final. The division bench allowed 14 petitions and applications filed by Saddruddin Hussain Daya (Dawood shoes), Rafique Abdul Malik Tejani (Metro shoes), Kishore Shingnapurkar (Milano shoes) and Abu Asim Azmi (Citywalk shoes). The police had sealed their shops and sale outlets of those displaying their items. The four main accused had applied for release of their property and defreezing of bank accounts before Additional Metropolitan Magistrate S N Chimade.

However, the magistrate upheld the right of the police to seal and take control of properties connected with the crime. The Bombay High Court, however, set aside the lower court’s order, stating, “much inconvenience could have been avoided, if the learned magistrate had dealt with the matter in accordance with law.”

The judges said the ruling had been given without going into the facts. The aim was to underline the legal point.

The ruling addresses itself to three main issues: first, whether police can seal immovable property under section 102 of CrPC, second, whether they can freeze bank accounts, and third, what is the exact procedure to be followed by the police in respect of property sealing under section 102 of CrPC? The court has answered the first two questions in the negative. The court maintains that section 102 does not empower police to seal due to mere suspicion of ill-gotten wealth. The court stated that if police merely has doubts regarding the property, sealing has to be conducted under section 105 of CrPC.

The division bench has made many observations against the police in this ruling. “It was wrong on the part of the police to seal the premises…even assuming that the police wanted to seize moveable articles inside the shops, the sealing is wholly unjustified.”

The court states, “Properties have been sealed without even making a list of goods inside, showing the casual and improper attitude of the police…several shops have been closed for the last nine months, keeping employees jobless.”

The judges also expressed surprise that police or the state government did not file any rejoinder to petitions of the accused.