9911796707
TMI Blog2023 (3) TMI 378X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... eir duty and service to him as per the RBI guidelines and thereby committed illegality in not intimating him regarding the status of the cheque deposited by him in the said bank in spite of several approach made by him. I. FACTS OF THE CASE 2. The Petitioner is the account holder of the Opposite Party No.2/ Bank with SB account bearing No.13770100052201. He had deposited an amount of Rs.67,00,000/- by way of cheque bearing No.270767 dated 06.06.2017 of the South Indian Bank Ltd., Cuttack on 12.06.2017 in his account with Opposite Party No.2/Bank and had obtained the acknowledgement slip. After deposit of the cheque, no intimation was received by the Petitioner from the Opp. Party No.2/Bank and due to his arrest after 7-8 days of the depo ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... nking Ombudsman-Opposite Party No.1 for ventilating his grievance on 17.02.2022. According to the Petitioner, his case was not adjudicated by the Ombudsman in proper prospective and the same was dismissed in a mechanical manner and the proceeding was closed on the ground that: "since a case has been registered against you by the law enforcement authority and basing on the same the bank has acted upon. Therefore your complaint is treated as dealt with and closed under appropriate clause of the Integrated Ombudsman Scheme 2021. Accordingly, the complaint has been closed under Clause16(2)(a) of the Reserve Bank- Integrated Ombudsman Scheme 2021", And it was communicated to the Petitioner vide email dated 04.04.2022. II. SUBMISSIONS ON BEH ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... he Opposite Party Nos.2 and 3 in view of the fact that the Petitioner has been implicated in a criminal case which was registered as Badambadi P.S. Case No.136 dated 28.06.2017 for the alleged offence under Sections 420, 467, 468, 471 and 406 of I.P.C. for which the Addl. IIC of Badambadi P.S. had requested the Bank of the present Opp. Parties to freeze the account as the Petitioner has cheated Rs.1,44,77,000/- fraudulently on different dates. 10. The Petitioner had never presented the cheque bearing No.270767 dated 06.06.2017 amounting to Rs.67,00,000/- before the Branch of the Opp. Party No.2 which was signed by Mathew Kuzhikandan from SB Account No.0569053000001006 of the South Indian Bank, Cuttack Branch. From the counter foil dated 12 ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... t that the South Indian Bank, Cuttack Branch had never received any intimation from the Federal Bank Pvt. Ltd., Cuttack branch in connection with the encashment of the cheque No.270767 dated 06.06.2017 and account of the drawer of the cheque was closed since 09.02.2015. IV. COURT'S ANALYSIS AND REASONS 13. From a bare perusal of pleadings of the parties, the primary issue that arises for consideration is whether the Petitioner presented the cheque bearing No.270767 dated 06.06.2017 amounting to Rs.67,00,000/- before the Branch of the Opp. Party No.2/ Bank. From the materials on record, it is clear that the Petitioner has presented a counter-foil dated 12.06.2017 with bank seal as proof that his deposit was duly acknowledged by the bank. ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... -slip and it is usually stamped if the depositor insists for an acknowledgement slip in lieu of his deposit. Therefore, the counterfoil and the corresponding bank seal can be easily obtained through forgery even though no actual deposit has been made to the bank and in the instant case where the counterfoil has not been endorsed by any bank official; there is a possibility that the said bank seal could have been forged. It is also contended that after receiving notice from this Court in the present case, the Opp. Party No.2 obtained a report from the South Indian Bank, Cuttack, about the status of SB Account No.0569053000001006 and it was reported that the account of Mathew Kuzhikandan was closed since 09.02.2015 and the South Indian bank, ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... 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 committed 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 relations is '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 for which the police officer is investigating into." 17. Since, a criminal case is pending against the Petitioner where he has been accused of receivi ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
