Coming to the rescue of 39 victims of ATM frauds, the sessions court has allowed the plea of ICICI Bank to claim over Rs9.51 lakhs recovered by VB Nagar police station from three Romanian nationals involved in such frauds.
The bank’s plea was earlier rejected by the magistrate court for want of proof. The sessions court, however, said that the magistrate’s order was erroneous.
The sessions court was hearing the plea filed by ICICI Bank, challenging the order passed by the metropolitan magistrate court, Kurla, rejecting the bank’s plea for withdrawal of the funds recovered from the accused. The bank had approached the magistrate after the police issued a notice to the bank.
It was claimed that VB Nagar police had arrested three Romanian nationals and found them involved in around 497 cases related to ATM theft or card frauds. The police had recovered Rs28.54 lakh from the accused. Out of the said amount, Rs15.45 lakh was given to the Bandra police station by the order of the magistrate court. The remaining amount of Rs13.08 lakh was deposited in the police station; out of the said amount, Rs9.51 lakh belonged to ICICI Bank as some of the cards belonged to its customers.
The bank was asked by VB Nagar police station to furnish the details of the accounts that were debited by virtue of the transactions carried out. The details were cross-checked and it was found that there were a total 39 customers who had disputed ATM withdrawal transactions worth Rs11.18 lakh. The bank furnished the information of the customers to the police.
The bank then sought funds to the tune of Rs9.51 lakh through the court, to recover its losses suffered due to fraud as it had already returned the amount to its customers. On the receipt of the application, the magistrate court called for a reply of the investigating officer. The prosecution first gave a no-objection, upon which the court asked the police to submit a list of serial numbers of the notes.
The officer, however, failed and neglected to provide the same. On the contrary, the officer asked the bank for the date and time when the cards were used at the ATM of Union Bank of India. With this, the magistrate court rejected the plea and observed that the aspect of card-use can only be decided at the time of trial.
The sessions court, however, claimed that the magistrate court committed an error by taking the said view and said that it ought to have given the interim custody of the amount to the applicant bank. The sessions court has now asked the police to return the funds.
