Mapusa court directs banks to defreeze Luthras’ firms’ accounts

Panaji: A Mapusa court directed banks in Punjab and UP to immediately defreeze current bank accounts of two firms in which brothers Gaurav and Saurabh Luthra are partners. The court found that the investigating officer of the Anjuna police station exceeded his jurisdiction in freezing them on the heels of the the Birch by Romeo Lane nightclub fire that killed 25 people at Arpora in Dec.

Rich People Hospitality LLP submitted that it is engaged in the business of a restaurant and bar under the name Romeo Lane at Mohali, while YB Hospitality LLP submitted that it is involved in running the resort and restaurant, Caha, in Goa and has nothing to do with the FIR registered at the Anjuna police station.




The IO stated that there is a PIL in which compensation is sought for the deceased and injured, and therefore funds in the partnership accounts are required to be preserved. The IO added that the labour commissioner issued notices to the Luthra brothers directing them to deposit money towards compensation payable to families of the deceased, and that such freezing of bank accounts is a primary source of compliance with the said statutory directions.

The court stated that, in terms of Section 107 of the BNSS dealing with attachment, forfeiture or restoration of property, a police officer investigating a crime has to approach a jurisdictional magistrate to seek attachment of any property believed to be derived directly or indirectly from a criminal activity or commission of an offence. The subsequent course has to be adopted in terms of the order passed by the magistrate. “Therefore, in all possibilities, the IO did not invoke Section 107 of BNSS in the present case,” the court held.

“Though it is not mentioned in the reply of the IO as to which section under the BNSS was invoked by the IO to debit freeze the account of the applicants’ partnership firm, the IO must have invoked Section 106 of the BNSS,” the court stated, adding that this section can be invoked under two circumstances: where the property is alleged or suspected to be stolen, or when the property is found under circumstances which create suspicion of any offence.

“None of these circumstances as mentioned under Section 106 of the BNSS are available or can be made applicable to the case in hand. Therefore, without going into the merits of the present application, the IO in the present case, by debit freezing the account of the applicant partnership firm, exceeded his jurisdiction or, for that matter, acted beyond his powers,” stated judicial magistrate first class, ‘C’ court, Mapusa, Jude Torex Sequeira.