JUDGMENT B.K. NAYAK, J. - In this application under Section 482 Cr.P.C., the petitioner challenges the order dated 14.03.2016 passed by the learned Special Judge, Vigilance, Bolangir in C.T.R. Case No.14 of 2014 rejecting the application of the petitioner for de-freezing his S.B. Account bearing Nos.144910011000236 and 04010100461634 and allowing him to operate such Bank Accounts. 2. The petitioner is facing prosecution under Section 13 (2) read with Section 13 (1) (e) of the Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988 for allegedly amassing wealth disproportionate to his known source of income to the tune of Rs.11,10,27,021.16 P., which he and his wife could not satisfactorily account for. During investigation several properties and valuables belonging to the petitioner including two S.B. Accounts bearing Nos.144910011000236 and 04010100461634 were also seized by the Investigating Officer. It is stated that a total amount of Rs.4,50,000/- is lying in deposit in the said Savings Bank Accounts. 3. The petitioner filed a petition for lifting the seizure in respect of the said two Savings Bank Accounts and to allow him to operate them on the ground that his wife underwent operation for which the petitioner had to borrow money and that she is still undergoing treatment in AMRI Hospital, Bhubaneswar for which money is required. By the impugned order the prayer to release the Savings Bank Accounts has been rejected. 4. Learned Counsel for the petitioner submitted that there is no bar for releasing the seized Bank Accounts and that in the instant case since the petitioner wants money from the Savings Bank Accounts to meet the medical expenses of his wife, the impugned order be set aside and the petitioner be permitted to operate those accounts. Learned Additional Standing Counsel for Vigilance Department, on the other hand submitted that since the money lying in two Savings Bank Accounts of the petitioner was alleged to be part of the disproportionate assets amassed by the petitioner, the same cannot be released until conclusion of the trial. 5. Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988 does not speak as to how the properties seized during investigation for alleged commission of offences under the Act are to be disposed of. However, under Section 22 of the Act, the provisions of Criminal Procedure Code, 1973 have been made applicable to any proceedings in relation to an offence punishable under the Act. 5. Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988 does not speak as to how the properties seized during investigation for alleged commission of offences under the Act are to be disposed of. However, under Section 22 of the Act, the provisions of Criminal Procedure Code, 1973 have been made applicable to any proceedings in relation to an offence punishable under the Act. Under sub-Section (1) of Section 452 of the Cr.P.C. on conclusion of any enquiry or trial in a criminal Court, the Court is empowered to make order for disposal of the seized property by different ways including the confiscation of the same. The punishment provided for under sub-Section (2) of Section 13 of the Prevention of Corruption Act includes fine, the amount of which has not been specified. So Section 16 of the Act provides for taking into consideration the amount or value of the property which the accused has obtained by committing the offence, for the purpose of imposition of fine. 6. The object for which the Investigating Police Officer has been vested with power under Section 102, Cr.P.C. to seize properties including Bank Account would be defeated if the money deposited in the account is allowed to be withdrawn before the conclusion of the trial. In this context, the observation of the Hon’ble Supreme Court in paragraph-12 of the decision in the case of State of Maharashtra vrs.Tapas D. Neogy (2000) 18 OCR (SC) 711 which is to the following effect, are relevant: “12. Having considered the divergent views taken by different High Courts with regard to the power of seizure under Section 102 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, land whether the Bank account can be held to be ’property’ within the meaning of the said Section 102 (1), we see no justification to give any narrow interpretation to the provisions of the Criminal Procedure Code. It is well known that corruption in public offices has become so rampant that it has become difficult to cope up with the same. It is well known that corruption in public offices has become so rampant that it has become difficult to cope up with the same. Then again the time consumed by the Courts in concluding the trials is another factor which should be borne in mind in interpreting the provisions of Section 102 of the Criminal procedure Code and the underlying object engrafted therein, inasmuch as if there can be no order of seizure in the bank account of the accused then the entire money deposited in a bank which is ultimately held in the trial to be the outcome of the illegal gratification, could be withdrawn by the accused and the Courts would be powerless to get the said money which has any direct link within the commission of the offence committed by the accused as a public officer. We are, therefore, persuaded to take the view that the bank account of the accused or any of his relations is “property” within the meaning of Section 102 of the Criminal Procedure Code and a Police Officer in course of investigation can seize or prohibit the operation of the said account if such assets have direct links with the commission of the offence for which the police officer is investigating into. The contrary view expressed by the Karnataka, Gauhati and Allahabad High Courts, does not represent the correct law. It may also be seen that under the Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988, in the matter of imposition of fine under Sub-Section (2) of Section 13, the legislature have provided that the Courts in fixing the amount of fine shall take into consideration the amount or the value of the property which the accused person has obtained by committing the offence or where the conviction is for an offence referred to in Clause (e) of Sub-Section (1) of Section 13, the pecuniary resources or property for which the accused person is unable to account satisfactorily. The interpretation given by us in respect of the power of seizure under Section 102 of the Criminal Procedure Code is in accordance with the intention of the legislature engrafted in Section 16 of the Prevention of Corruption Act referred to above. The interpretation given by us in respect of the power of seizure under Section 102 of the Criminal Procedure Code is in accordance with the intention of the legislature engrafted in Section 16 of the Prevention of Corruption Act referred to above. In the foresaid premises, we have no hesitation to come to the conclusion that the High Court of Bombay committed error in holding that the police officer could not have seized the bank account or could not have issued any direction to the bank officer, prohibiting the account of the accused from being operated upon. Though we have laid down the law, but so far as the present case is concerned, the order impugned has already been given effect to and the accused has been operating his account, and so, we do not interfere with the same.” 7. In the instant case the alleged disproportionate assets of the petitioner is more than rupees one crore which also includes the money lying in deposit in the two S.B. Accounts of the petitioner and in case it is now allowed to be withdrawn by the petitioner, the Court would face difficulty in passing appropriate order for disposal of property on the conclusion of the trial in the event of conviction. 8. For the reasons aforesaid, I find no infirmity in the impugned order rejecting the petitioner’s application for releasing his Savings Bank Accounts. The CRLMC is accordingly dismissed. CRLMC dismissed.