Judgment : Since both the criminal original petitions are connected on facts and on law, they were heard together and are being disposed of by this common order. 2. The spouses, Sivaraj, petitioner in Crl.O.P.No.576 of 2013, and Indirani, petitioner in Crl.O.P.No.577 of 2013, seek direction to the respondent to defreeze their bank accounts, which have been frozen in pursuance of the prohibitory orders of the Investigating Officer (respondent) in connection with investigation into certain offences. 3. There were allegation of duping of several persons that they will get more on deposit of their money with the accused. Ultimately, the depositors were cheated. The main cheat is A-1, Jagadeesan. He had many associates. One of them is petitioner Sivaraj. On the basis of complaints of persons, who were cheated, the DCB, Salem registered Crime Nos.24,25 and 26 of 2012 for offences under Section 420 IPC and Section 4 & 5 of Prize Chits and Money Circulation (Banning) Act,1978. Sivaraj is A14 and A15 respectively in Crime Nos.25 & 24 of 2012. Subsequently, the investigation has been transferred to EOW-II Unit, Salem. Section of law also has been altered to Section 420 IPC and Section 5 of TNPID Act. It is pertinent to note that the Special Judge under the said Act is an Officer in the cadre of District Judge, in certain aspects under the Act he is deemed to be a Magistrate and he has all the powers of a Magistrate. Unless specifically excluded the provisions of Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 applies to the proceedings under T.N.P.D.I Act. 4. Sivaraj is maintaining two accounts in the IDBI Bank Ltd., Four Road Branch, Salem. They are (1) 211104000016603 and (2) 0211104000093772 . In the same bank, his wife Indirani is maintaining Account No.0211104000106856. She is not an accused. 5. The investigating officer served prohibitory order on the said bank, requesting to freeze their accounts. Accordingly, they were frozen. These criminal original petitions were directed to de-freeze them. 6. According to the learned counsel for the petitioners, the freezure of the bank account has not been immediately reported to the Magistrate. This is against Section 102(3) Cr.P.C. So, the accounts have to be de-freezed. 7. In support of his said submissions, the learned counsel would cite PADMINI VS. THE INSPECTOR OF POLICE, D.C.B, TIRUNELVELI AND ORS. [2008 (3) CTC 657], VINOSHKUMAR RAMACHANDRAN VALLUVAR VS. This is against Section 102(3) Cr.P.C. So, the accounts have to be de-freezed. 7. In support of his said submissions, the learned counsel would cite PADMINI VS. THE INSPECTOR OF POLICE, D.C.B, TIRUNELVELI AND ORS. [2008 (3) CTC 657], VINOSHKUMAR RAMACHANDRAN VALLUVAR VS. THE STATE OF MAHARASHTRA [2011 (1) MWN (Cr.) 497 (FB)(Bom.)] and the order of this court made in Crl.O.P.No.13103, etc, of 2013, dated 30.8.2013 [T.SUBBULAKSHMI VS. THE COMMISSIONER OF POLICE, CHENNAI AND ORS.]. 8. The learned Additional Public Prosecutor would not dispute that the investigating officer has not reported the freezing of the bank accounts to the Magistrate. However, he would submit that it is an irregularity. It will not vitiate the freezing of the bank accounts. 9. I have anxiously considered the rival submissions, perused the status report of the investigating officer and the decisions cited. 10. When information as to the commission of a cognizable offence is reported to the officer in-charge of the Police Station, he has to register an FIR (See : Section 154, Cr.P.C.). Thereafter, it is his statutory duty to investigate the crime (See : Section 156(1)). As per Section 2(h), Cr.P.C., "investigation" refers to all the actions taken by the Investigating Officer to collect the required evidence in connection with the crime reported. It is to bring home the offence to the offender. 11. In pursuing the investigation, the investigation officer has to take various steps. (See: Section 157, Cr.P.C.) Investigation consists of proceeding to the scene of crime, recording of statement of witnesses (See : Sections 160, 161, Cr.P.C.), search and seizure of documents, material objects etc., arrest of the accused. 12. Right from the Privy Council decision in EMPEROR VS. KHWAJA NAZIR AHMAD, [AIR 1945 PC 18] and the Hon'ble Apex Court's decisions in STATE OF BIHAR VS. J.A.C.SALDANA [ 1980 (1) SCC 554 ] and STATE OF HARYANA VS. BAJANLAL [1992 (1) SUPP (SCC) 335] , it is held that in this country the process of investigation is the province of police. It is unrestricted. However, it is subject to the statutory provisions relating to investigation. 13. As stated already, one of the process of investigation, namely, collection of evidence, is seizure of case-properties. There are properties with respect to which an offence has been committed. Another category is property used in the commission of offence. It may be movable or immovable. It is unrestricted. However, it is subject to the statutory provisions relating to investigation. 13. As stated already, one of the process of investigation, namely, collection of evidence, is seizure of case-properties. There are properties with respect to which an offence has been committed. Another category is property used in the commission of offence. It may be movable or immovable. Close on the heels are stolen properties and properties which create suspicion of commission of an offence. 14. In seizing the properties, the investigating officer has to follow certain procedures. That has been prescribed in Section 102 Cr.P.C. It runs as under : "102. Power of police officer to seize certain property.-(1)Any Police Officer may seize any property which may be alleged or suspected to have been stolen or which may be found under circumstances which create suspicion of the commission of any offence. (2) Such police officer, if subordinate to the officer in charge of a Police Station, shall forthwith report the seizure to that officer. (3) Every Police Officer acting under sub-section (1) shall forthwith report the seizure to the Magistrate having jurisdiction and where the property seized is such that it cannot be conveniently transported to the Court or where there is difficulty in securing proper accommodation for the custody of such property, or where the continued retention of the property in police custody may not be considered necessary for the purpose of investigation, he may give custody thereof to any person on his executing a bond undertaking to produce the property before the Court as and when required and to give effect to the further orders of the Court as to the disposal of the same: Provided that where the property seized under sub-section (1) is subject to speedy and natural decay and if the person entitled to the possession of such property is unknown or absent and the value of such property is less than five hundred rupees, it may forthwith be sold by auction under the orders of the Superintendent of Police and the provisions of Sections 457, and 458, shall, as nearly as may be practicable, apply to the net proceeds of such sale." [emphasis supplied by me] 15. In STATE OF MAHARASHTRA VS. In STATE OF MAHARASHTRA VS. TAPAS D.NEOGY [1999 (3) CTC 350 (SC)], it was held that the bank account is the property capable of seizure thus, for the purpose of investigation, if it has some bearing on the crime reported, the investigating officer can seize it under section 102 Cr.P.C. by serving a prohibitory order on the bank to freeze the bank account, prohibiting the (accused) / account holder from operating the account. [Also see: SWARAN SABHAR WAL Vs. COMMISSIONER OF POLICE (1998 Cr.L.J 241), RAJAMANI Vs. INSPECTOR OF POLICE, SALEM,(2003 Cr.L.J., 2902) and RANGANATHAN Vs. STATE (2003 Cr.L.J.2779) ] 16. Section 102(1) describes the categories of properties to be seized. When an officer subordinate to the SHO seized them, he must report his seizure to his superior. Section 102(3) mandates that every seizure of property under Section 102(1) Cr.P.C. shall be reported to the jurisdiction Magistrate. 17. For the purpose of Section 102(1) Cr.P.C. cash on hand and cash at bank in bank account are properties. 18. In R.CHANDRASEKAR VS. INSPECTOR OF POLICE, SALEM [ 2002 (5) CTC 598 ], it was held that seizure of bank account by the investigating officer must be reported to the Magistrate as it is a mandatory requirement of law. 19. In Dr.SHASHIKANTD. KARNIK VS. STATE OF MAHARASHTRA [2008 CRL.L.J. 148], it was held that seizure of property under Section 102 Cr.P.C has to be reported to the Magistrate. 20. CHANDRASEKAR (supra) was subsequently followed in PADMINI VS. THE INSPECTOR OF POLICE, DCB, TIRUNELVELI [2008 (3) CTC 657]. 21. In VINOSHKUMAR RAMACHANDRAN VALLUVAR VS. THE STATE OF MAHARASHTRA [2011 (1) MWN (Cr.) 497 (FB)(Bom.)], a Full Bench of the Bombay High Court held that the requirement of reporting of freezing of bank account to the Magistrate prescribed under Section 102(3) Cr.P.C is mandatory in nature. 22. In pursuing their investigation under Section 102 Cr.P.C., the Code empowered the police officers to deprive a person of his properties. In this context, the phrase, "shall" employed in Section 102(3) Cr.P.C, is held to be mandatory in nature. Violation of it cannot be an irregularity committed by the investigating officer. 23. Very recently, a learned single judge of this court in Crl.O.P.No.13103 of 2013, etc, on 30.8.2013 [T.SUBBULAKSHMI VS. THE COMMISSIONER OF POLICE, EGMORE, CHENNAI AND OTHERS] also took similar view. 24. Violation of it cannot be an irregularity committed by the investigating officer. 23. Very recently, a learned single judge of this court in Crl.O.P.No.13103 of 2013, etc, on 30.8.2013 [T.SUBBULAKSHMI VS. THE COMMISSIONER OF POLICE, EGMORE, CHENNAI AND OTHERS] also took similar view. 24. Thus, in this case, admittedly, the investigating officer, in freezing the bank accounts of the petitioners, has not reported the freezing of the bank accounts to the Magistrate. It is vitiated. It is required to be annulled. 25. In the circumstances, the respondent is directed to defreeze the accounts maintained by R.Sivaraj,[Petitioner in Crl.O.P.No.576 of 2013], namely, Account Nos.(1) 211104000016603 and (2) 0211104000093772 and the Account No.0211104000106856 maintained by Tmt.S.Indirani [Petitioner in Cr.O.P.No.577 of 2013] IDBI Bank Ltd., Four Road Branch, Salem. Since the accounts are now defreezed on account of certain technical snag, the investigating officer, if need be, can freeze the accounts strictly following the provisions of Section 102 Cr.P.C. Both the Cr.O.Ps. are disposed of accordingly.