Law: Federal Investigation Agency Act, 1975

Section: 5(1) & 5(5)

(a) Federal Investigation Agency Act, 1974 (VIII of 1975)---

----Ss. 5(1) & 5(5)---Anti-Money Laundering Act (VII of 2010), Ss. 8, 9 & 25(1)--Criminal Procedure Code (V of 1898), S. 4(l)--- Restriction imposed on Bank account---Inquiry and investigation---Petitioner was aggrieved of initiation of inquiry by Federal Investigating Agency (FIA) and imposing restrictions on his bank accounts---Validity---Section 550, Cr.P.C. encompassed bank accounts--Since the FIA was competent to exercise powers under S. 550, Cr.P.C., it held the authority to freeze bank accounts or restrict their operation under S. 5(1) of the FIA Act, regardless of whether the matter was in the inquiry or investigation stage--However, this would be subject to the condition that there should be some nexus with the alleged offence or that circumstances created suspicion of the commission of any offence---Freezing of accounts affects the right to privacy and the reputation of the account holder---Federal Investigating Agency could not arbitrarily freeze bank accounts or keep them frozen indefinitely---Such actions would violate the account holder's constitutional and legal rights---However, these individual rights must be balanced with the duty of the State to combat crime and punish offenders--Whenever the FIA issued a directive restricting an individual's bank account, whether during an inquiry or investigation, it must promptly notify the relevant Magistrate or Court, which would then issue an order in accordance with the law appropriate to the situation and circumstances---In the present case, Respondent No.3 (Inspector, FIA) had debit-blocked the Petitioner's account by exercising the authority under S. 5(5) of the FIA Act read with S. 8 of the Anti-Money Laundering Act---Fact that Respondent No.3 did not register an FIR upon receiving a complaint alleging the commission of a cognizable offence did not hinder the initiation of the investigation---Perusal of the record showed that Respondent No.3 had blatantly disregarded Ss. 8 & 9 of the Anti-Money Laundering Act in the present case--Investigating Officer did not obtain permission from the competent Court before issuing directives to the Bank concerning the petitioner's account---Investigating Officer did not render findings under S. 9(2) of the Anti-Money Laundering Act or applied to the Court for an order under S. 9(3) thereof---Investigating Officer did not submit a monthly progress report of the investigation to the Court---Petition was accepted and the limitation placed on the petitioner's bank account by Respondent No.3 was annulled.