Recently, our firm had the opportunity to appear before the Sessions Court in an application under Section 116D(5) of the Criminal Procedure Code (“CPC”), seeking the full release of our client’s bank account, which had been seized in connection with an investigation into an alleged investment scam.
The application provided an opportunity for our firm to consider the scope and applicability of Section 116D(5) of the CPC, particularly the circumstances in which the Court may exercise its discretion to vary or revoke a seizure order.
One interesting aspect of the provision is that it allows an affected person to seek the Court’s intervention while the seizure order remains in force, without necessarily having to wait for the expiry of the statutory period.
Under Section 116D of the CPC, a seizure order generally ceases to have effect upon the expiry of 18 months from the date of the order if no prosecution relating to the money has been instituted. This raises two interesting legal questions:
(a) Must an affected person wait for the expiry of the 18-month statutory period, or may the Court be approached earlier to determine whether the continued seizure of the account remains warranted?
(b) In what circumstances would the Court consider the full release of a seized bank account, as opposed to a partial release or variation of the seizure order?
In this instance, the application concluded with the full release of our client’s bank account. Our firm is grateful for the opportunity to advance our client’s position before the Court and for the consideration given to the application.
Every case will, of course, turn on its own facts and circumstances.
