Madhya Pradesh

StateCommission

A/18/561

SAHITYA SHIKSHA SAMITI - Complainant(s)

Versus

UNION BANK OF INDIA - Opp.Party(s)

22 Jun 2019

ORDER

M. P. STATE CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL COMMISSION, BHOPAL

PLOT NO.76, ARERA HILLS, BHOPAL

                              

                                    FIRST APPEAL NO. 558 OF 2018

(Arising out of order dated 22.11.2018 passed in C.C.No.447/2017 by the District Forum, Gwalior)  

 

URMILA SINGHAL & ORS.                                                                                 …          APPELLANTS.

 

Versus

 

UNION BANK OF INDIA & ANR.                                                                         …         RESPONDENTS.

 

                                       FIRST APPEAL NO. 559 OF 2018

(Arising out of order dated 22.11.2018 passed in C.C.No.45/2018 by the District Forum, Gwalior)  

 

URMILA SINGHAL & ORS.                                                                                 …          APPELLANTS.

 

Versus

 

UNION BANK OF INDIA & ANR.                                                                         …         RESPONDENTS.

 

                                        FIRST APPEAL NO. 560 OF 2018

(Arising out of order dated 22.11.2018 passed in C.C.No.44/2018 by the District Forum, Gwalior)  

 

URMILA SINGHAL & ORS.                                                                                 …          APPELLANTS.

 

Versus

 

UNION BANK OF INDIA & ANR.                                                                         …         RESPONDENTS.

 

                                        FIRST APPEAL NO. 561 OF 2018

(Arising out of order dated 22.11.2018 passed in C.C.No.88/2018 by the District Forum, Gwalior)  

 

SECRETARY, SAHITYA SHIKSHA SAMITI, GWALIOR.                                   …          APPELLANT.

 

Versus

 

UNION BANK OF INDIA & ANR.                                                                         …         RESPONDENTS.

 

                                        FIRST APPEAL NO. 562 OF 2018

(Arising out of order dated 22.11.2018 passed in C.C.No.89/2018 by the District Forum, Gwalior)  

 

SECRETARY, SAHITYA SHIKSHA SAMITI, GWALIOR.                                   …          APPELLANT.

 

Versus

 

UNION BANK OF INDIA & ANR.                                                                         …         RESPONDENTS.

 

BEFORE:

 

                  HON’BLE SHRI JUSTICE SHANTANU S. KEMKAR    :      PRESIDENT

                  HON’BLE DR. MONIKA MALIK                                     :      MEMBER                

 

                                      O R D E R

22.06.2019

 

           Shri Anil Singhal, authorised representative of appellants.

             None for the respondents.

                         

As per Shri Justice Shantanu S. Kemkar : 

                        All the aforesaid five appeals are taken up together and are being disposed of by this common order.  This order shall govern disposal of all the aforesaid five appeals. For convenience facts of the case are taken from the First Appeal No. 558/2018, unless otherwise stated.              

                                                                          -2-

2.                Feeling aggrieved by the order dated 22.11.2018 passed by the District Consumer Disputes Redressal Forum, Gwalior (For short the ‘Forum’) in C.C.No.447/2017 the complainants have filed this appeal.

3.                Brief facts necessary for disposal of this appeal are that the appellants had filed a complaint before the Forum alleging therein that they had deposited certain amount in FDRs with the respondent bank for a period of five years. On expiry of period of FDRs the maturity amount payable to them was denied to paid by the respondent bank on the ground that the Economic Offence Wing, Gwalior in exercise to their powers under Section 102 of Criminal Procedure Code, had directed the respondent bank not to release payments from the appellants’ bank accounts. Challenging the said action of the respondent bank the complaint as aforesaid was filed by the appellants before the Forum, which suffered dismissal by the impugned order.

4.                According to appellants, the action of the respondent bank in not making payment of the maturity amount of the FDRs is violation of Banking Rules and Regulations. It is also the case of the appellant that exercise of powers under Section 102 of Criminal Procedure Code by the Economic Offence Wing, Gwalior was without jurisdiction and as such on the basis of the same the bank could not have withheld the amount payable to the appellant on the maturity of the FDRs.

5.                The case of the respondent was that in view of various letters (Exhibit R-1 to R-7) received from the Economic Offence Wing, Gwalior it had no option but to withhold the maturity amount of the FDRs.  The allegation of violation of Banking Rules and Regulations was denied.

6.                The Forum after considering the pleadings and the evidence by the impugned order dismissed the complaint holding that there was just and sufficient reason for the respondent to withhold the amount and as such declined to interfere in the matter.  Aggrieved appellants have filed the aforesaid appeals.

7.                Heard the representative of the appellants and perused the record.

-3-

8.                In order to appreciate the rival contentions it will be appropriate to quote provisions of Section 102 of Criminal Procedure Code. Section 102 of Criminal Procedure Code, 1973 reads thus:

102. Power of police officer to seize certain property—(1) 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.

 

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

 

(3) 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.

 

9.                The scope of the powers of the police officer under Section 102 of Criminal Procedure Code was considered by the Supreme Court in State of Maharashtra Vs Tapas D. Neogy (1999) 7 SCC 685.  The Supreme Court has held that if circumstances exist creating suspicion of commission of any offence in relation to the bank account, Section 102(1) is attracted empowering the police officer investigating the offence to seize the bank account and issue order prohibiting the account from being operated upon.

10.               In the present case, the representative of the appellants has not disputed the fact that the enquiry about having disproportionate assets than the known sources of income by the “Sahitya Shiksha Samiti” is being conducted by the S.P. Economic Offence Wing (EOW) Gwalior.  It has also not been disputed by him that the appellants were the office bearers of the said Sahitya Shiksha Samiti during the relevant time.

11.               In view of the aforesaid undisputed fact and also having gone through the documents Exhibit R-1 to R-7 we are of the considered view that the action taken by the bank on the basis of the aforesaid letters Exhibit R-1 to R-7 received from the Economic Offence Wing, Gwalior cannot be said to be illegal or in violation of Banking Rules and Regulations.  The said action cannot be termed as deficiency in

-4-

service. The respondent bank having received aforesaid letters from the police department (EOW) had no option but to comply with same. In case the appellants feel that the action of the EOW of issuing aforesaid letters to the respondent bank, is illegal, the appropriate remedy for the appellants is to approach competent court of law challenging the said letters and to seek appropriate remedy as may be available. Thus we find no infirmity in the action of the respondent bank in withholding the maturity amount of the FDRs in view of the aforesaid letters received from the EOW.

12.               As a result, this appeal and all connected appeals fail and are dismissed. No order as to costs.  

13.               This order be placed in First Appeal No.558/2018 and a copy be placed in First Appeal Nos. 559, 560, 561 & 562 OF 2018.

 

 

                   (Justice Shantanu S. Kemkar)         (Dr. Monika Malik)              

                                    President                                      Member