Judgment S.K.Katriar, J. 1. This writ petition has been preferred with the prayer to issue a writ of mandamus commanding the respondents to allow the petitioner to operate his bank account bearing current account no. 2/2143, with the State Bank of India, Katahra Branch, (respondent nos. 1 to 4) in which an amount to the tune of Rs. 39,67,50.20 P.is lying in deposit, The respondent Bank is purportedly acting on the instructions of the Central Bureau of Investigation (respondent no.5), in refusing to allow the petitioner to operate the Bank account. 2. The petitioner, Chandra Kumar Mishra, runs his proprietory business in the name and style of M/s. Shakti Traders. Respondent no.5 had instituted an F.I.R. on 8.8.98, with the Delhi Special Police Establishment, Bihar Branch, Patna, against one Chandradeo Ram, Accountant, State Bank of India, Kathara Branch, district Giridih, and others not named in the F.I.R. alleging issuance of D.C.Rs., which are in the nature of demand drafts, in favour of Central Coal Fields Ltd., without depositing the money value of the D.C.Rs. with the Bank. The said Chandradeo Ram was then functioning as an Accountant in the said Branch of the Bank. The F.I.R. was registered as RC 27 (A)/88, and a copy of the same is marked as Annexure-1 to the writ petition. Another F.I.R. was lodged with the Delhi Special Police Establishment, Bihar Branch, Patna, alleging similar allegations of obtaining D.C.Rs. from the Kathara Branch without depositing the money for which the D.C.Rs. were detained, wherein the petitioner was also named as an accused person, apart from others. The same was registered as RC case no. 37(A)/83, a copy of which is Annexure-2 to the writ petition. Patna Branch of the C.B.I. investigated the allegations and submitted a joint charge sheet dated 16.7.97 (Annexure-A to the counter affidavit of respondent no.5), under Section 420, 467, 468, 471, 477 A and 201 I.P.C., as well as under Section 5(2) of the Prevention of Corruption Act. 3. The petitioner has maintained a Bank Account with the Kathara Branch, bearing current Account No. 2/2143, in which a sum of Rs. 39,67,506.20 P. is lying in deposit. The respondent Bank has instituted Money suit No. 2/93 in the court of the Subordinate Judge, Bermo, at Tenughat, for realisation of Rs, 1,79,47,752.00. 3. The petitioner has maintained a Bank Account with the Kathara Branch, bearing current Account No. 2/2143, in which a sum of Rs. 39,67,506.20 P. is lying in deposit. The respondent Bank has instituted Money suit No. 2/93 in the court of the Subordinate Judge, Bermo, at Tenughat, for realisation of Rs, 1,79,47,752.00. The Subordinate Judge allowed the Banks application under Order 38, Rule 5 C.P.C., for attachment of property before the judgment, and the aforesaid Bank Account of the petitioner was attached vide order dated 2.12.95. The petitioner challenged the order of the Subordinate Judge before the Ranchi Bench of the High Court in Misc. Appeal No. 78/96 (R) (Kamal Kishor Singh & Ors. vs. State Bank of India and Ors.), which was allowed by a learned single Judge by judgment dated 18.3.97, whereby the said order dated 2.12.95, was set aside, and the matter was remitted back to the Subordinate Judge for a fresh order in accordance with law. It appears that the Bank has not thereafter pursued this matter before the Subordinate Judge. 4. The petitioner had issued a cheque for Rs. 45,000/- in favour of one Shilesh Kumar Mishra, drawn on his aforesaid current Account No. 2/2143, which was returned to the drawee with the Banks note dated 6.1.95 stating that the same could not be collected because "ReasonsA/C seized by the C.B.I., vide letter 6614/3/27037/A-88, dated 19.10.99". Photo copies of the cheque and the Banks return memo are marked Annexure 5 and 6 respectively to the writ petition. The petitioner had issued another cheque dated 20.9.97 for Rs. 50,000/-, drawn on the same Account which was also returned by the Bank with the note "referred to drawer". Photo Copies of the cheque and the Banks return memo are marked Annexures 7 and 8 respectively to the writ petition. 5. While assailing the validity of the impugned action of the respondent authorities, learned counsel for the petitioner submitted that the impugned action of respondent no.5 is in purported exercise of powers under section 102 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 (hereinafter referred to as the Code). He submits that section 102 of the Code should be read to mean that the Bank Account has been traced or discovered in the circumstances which has made the C.B.I. aware of the commission of the offence. He submits that section 102 of the Code should be read to mean that the Bank Account has been traced or discovered in the circumstances which has made the C.B.I. aware of the commission of the offence. In the present case, it cannot be said that the tracing of the Account or discovery of the Account has made the C.B.I. aware of the commission of the offence. In the present case, in his submission, the alleged offence was discovered first, and the alleged letter has been issued after one year. Therefore, the provisions of section 102 of the Code are not attracted. He has relied on the following reported judgments : (i) A.I.R. 1960 Allahabad 405 (Textile Traders Syndicate vs. The State of U.P.) (ii) 1988 Cr. LJ. 241 (M/s. Swaran Sabharwal vs. Commissioner of Police) (iii) 1991 (3) Cr. LJ. 2798 (M/s. Purbanchal Road Service, Gauhati vs. State) (iv) 1994 Cr. L.J. 2798 (M/s. Malnad Construction Co. vs. State of Karnataka) He next submitted that the powers under section 102 of the Code has been exercised in the present case improperly. Powers under section 102 of the Code can be exercised by the investigating agency only duing the course of investigation. He came to know of the position that the Bank Account has been seized by the Bankers return memo dated 6.1.95 (Annexure-6), whereas the charge-sheet had already been submitted on 16.7.91. Obviously, therefore, the C.B.I. passed the order seizing the Account after submission of the charge sheet and is, therefore, bad in law. In his submission, powers under section 102 of the Code can be exercised by the investigating agency only during the course of investigation. Obviously, therefore, the C.B.I. passed the order seizing the Account after submission of the charge sheet and is, therefore, bad in law. 6 Learned counsel for respondent no.5 has submitted that the order under section 102 of the Code seizing the Account was passed during the course of investigation. Therefore, exercise of powers under sections 102 of the Code cannot be faulted in the present case. He relies on the judgment of the Supreme Court reported in 1999 (7) SCC 685 (State of Maharashtra vs. Tapas D. Neogy). 7. Learned counsel for the respondent Bank has submitted that the Bank has submitted that the Bank has suffered a massive loss of Rs: 1,79,47,752.00, for which the Bank has already dismissed its employee. He relies on the judgment of the Supreme Court reported in 1999 (7) SCC 685 (State of Maharashtra vs. Tapas D. Neogy). 7. Learned counsel for the respondent Bank has submitted that the Bank has submitted that the Bank has suffered a massive loss of Rs: 1,79,47,752.00, for which the Bank has already dismissed its employee. It is also strenuously pursuing its suit before the Subordinate Judge, Bermo at Tenughat. He also submits that respondent no.5 had passed the order under section 102 of the Code seizing the petitioners Bank Account during the course of investigation. 8. Having considered the rival submissions of the parties, I am of the view that this writ petition has to be dismissed. The entire contention of the petitioner is based on a factual misrepresentation to the court that respondent no.5 had passed the order under section 102 of the Code seizing the Bank Account after the charge sheet had been submitted. It is manifest from the Banks return memo dated 6.1.95 (Annexure-6), returning the first cheque dated 19.12.94 (Annexure-5), that the cheque was being returned because "Reasons-A/C seized by C.B.I., vide letter 6614/3/27037/A-88, dated 19.10.89". This order was obviously passed during the course of investigation, because the charge sheet was submitted on 16.7.91 (Annexure-A). In that view of the matter, the argument advanced on behalf of the petitioner in support of the writ petition loses all force, based as it is on a factually false premise. The contention is, therefore, rejected. Learned counsel for the respondent no.5 has rightly relied on the judgment reported in 1999 (7) SCC 685 (State of Maharashtra vs. Tapas D. Neyogi), wherein the Supreme Court has dealt with the scope of section 102 of the Code and the powers of the police officer to seize the property. It has been held that the Bank Account of the accused or his relation constitutes "property". If circumstances existed creating suspicion of commission of any offence in relation to the Bank Account, provision of section 102 (1) of the Code is attracted empowering the police officer investigating the offence to seize the Bank Account and issue order prohibiting the Account from being operated upon. 9. In the result, this writ petition is dismissed, and the impugned action of the respondent authorities in refusing the petitioner to operate his Bank Account is hereby up-held. 9. In the result, this writ petition is dismissed, and the impugned action of the respondent authorities in refusing the petitioner to operate his Bank Account is hereby up-held. In fact, this court is pleased at the timely action taken by respondent no.5 in seizing the Account and protecting public money. The learned Special Judge, C.B.I., South Bihar, Patna, before whom the trial is pending, is hereby directed to conclude the trial expeditiously. The learned Subordinate Judge, Bermo at Tenughat, before whom the suit is pending is directed to dispose of Money Suit no. 2/93 expeditiously.