Authority: Gauhati High Court (High Court of Assam, Nagaland, Mizoram and Arunachal Pradesh)

Order Date: 01.10.2026

Case Overview

  • Parties: petitioner Dibyajyoti Datta (former General Manager – Sales, Indian Oil Corporation, Assam Oil Division) vs. Central Bureau of Investigation (CBI) represented by Ms. M. Kumari, SC.
  • Nature of Proceeding: Criminal Revision Petition (Crl.Pet./1144/2025) under Section 528 of the BNSS, 2023 seeking quash of the Special Judge’s order dated 14.08.2025 which rejected the petitioner’s prayer for release of seized cash and de‑freezing of bank accounts.
  • Background: An FIR dated 10.02.2019 (filed by Deputy Superintendent T.L. Zamang, CBI‑ACB Guwahati) alleged that the petitioner, while GM‑Sales of Indian Oil Corp (Assam Oil Division) in FY 2018‑19, conspired with others to demand and accept illegal gratification from private petrol‑pump owners and kerosene‑dealers across North‑Eastern states. The case was registered under Sections 7/7A/8/12 of the Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988 and Section 120B IPC.
  • Investigation Findings: CBI seized Rs 3,67,000 in Indian notes, one 5‑Euro note and US$2,000 (20 × $100) from the petitioner’s residence; froze SBI Savings Account No. 30014759731 (South Guwahati) and SBI PPF Account No. 10055711223 (Guwahati Medical College) held on behalf of his son, Sri Abhigyan Datta. The charge‑sheet filed on 23.12.2022 alleged a bribe of Rs 2,00,000 taken from co‑accused Ms. Bendangnaro Ao. A supplementary charge‑sheet was later filed.
  • Petitioner’s Prayer (20.01.2025): (i) hand over custody of the seized cash and foreign currency; (ii) de‑freeze the SBI savings account; (iii) de‑freeze the SBI PPF account.
  • CBI’s Position: The investigation remained pending (voice‑sample collection under Criminal Revision Petition No. 145/2020 still awaited), and freezing of accounts was necessary to prevent frustration of possible confiscation proceedings. CBI argued the PPF account could also be kept frozen as part of the investigation.
  • Legal Submissions:
  • Petitioner's counsel (Mr. S. Borthakur) argued that PPF accounts are protected under Sections 9 and 10 of the Public Provident Fund Act, 1968 and cannot be attached; cited WP(C) No.5074/2013 and Supreme Court judgments (Union of India v. Hira Devi, Union of India v. Jyoti Chit Fund).
  • CBI counsel (Ms. M. Kumari) contended that the seized accounts were listed in the seizure memo annexed to the charge‑sheet, that investigation was still ongoing, and that de‑freezing could hamper confiscation.
  • Court’s Reasoning:
  • Recognised that the PPF Act provides an absolute embargo against attachment of a subscriber’s balance; therefore the PPF account could not be lawfully frozen.
  • Noted that the investigation, including voice‑sample collection, was still in progress; consequently, the seized cash and the SBI savings account could still be deemed proceeds of crime and may be subject to confiscation at trial.
  • Emphasised that releasing the cash or de‑freezing the savings account at this stage could frustrate potential confiscation proceedings.

Final Outcome

  • The petition to hand over custody of Rs 3,67,000 cash, one 5‑Euro note and US$2,000, and to de‑freeze SBI Savings Account No. 30014759731 is rejected.
  • The petition to de‑freeze SBI PPF Account No. 10055711223 (held for son Abhigyan Datta) is granted; the bank is directed to take immediate steps for de‑freezing.
  • The petition is disposed of with the above directions.

Topics: Asset Attachment, Corruption Proceedings