Mapusa Court Directs Banks to Immediately Defreeze Accounts in Nightclub Fire Case
A Mapusa court has issued a significant order directing banks in Punjab and Uttar Pradesh to immediately defreeze the current bank accounts of two partnership firms in which brothers Gaurav and Saurabh Luthra are partners. This ruling comes in the aftermath of the tragic Birch by Romeo Lane nightclub fire that claimed 25 lives at Arpora in December.
Court Finds Police Officer Exceeded Jurisdiction
The court, presided over by Judicial Magistrate First Class Jude Torex Sequeira of the 'C' court in Mapusa, found that the investigating officer from the Anjuna police station had exceeded his jurisdiction by freezing the accounts. The firms involved are Rich People Hospitality LLP, which operates the restaurant and bar Romeo Lane in Mohali, and YB Hospitality LLP, which runs the resort and restaurant Caha in Goa.
In their submissions, the firms argued that YB Hospitality LLP has no connection to the FIR registered at the Anjuna police station, distancing themselves from the legal proceedings related to the fire incident.
Police Justification and Court's Legal Analysis
The investigating officer defended the freezing action by stating that a Public Interest Litigation (PIL) is seeking compensation for the deceased and injured victims, necessitating the preservation of funds in the partnership accounts. Additionally, the officer noted that the labour commissioner had issued notices to the Luthra brothers, directing them to deposit money for compensation to the families of the deceased, and that freezing the accounts was seen as a primary means to ensure compliance with these statutory directions.
However, the court provided a detailed legal analysis, referencing Section 107 of the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita (BNSS), which deals with the attachment, forfeiture, or restoration of property. According to the court, a police officer investigating a crime must approach a jurisdictional magistrate to seek attachment of any property believed to be derived from criminal activity. The subsequent actions must then follow the magistrate's order.
The court held, "Therefore, in all possibilities, the IO did not invoke Section 107 of BNSS in the present case." It further stated that while the officer did not specify which section was used, it was likely Section 106 of the BNSS, which applies only in two circumstances: when property is alleged or suspected to be stolen, or when found under circumstances creating suspicion of an offence.
Court's Final Ruling and Implications
The court concluded that none of these circumstances under Section 106 were applicable to this case. In its ruling, it stated, "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."
This decision underscores the importance of adhering to legal procedures in financial investigations, particularly in high-profile cases involving tragic incidents. The defreezing of the accounts may impact ongoing compensation efforts and legal proceedings related to the nightclub fire, highlighting the complex interplay between law enforcement actions and judicial oversight in India's legal framework.
