2022 (12) TMI 1511 - HC - Indian Laws

Release of freezed amount - appeal against acquittal is pending - Whether the appeal against the acquittal can be said to be a continuation of prosecution of the acquitted accused or not? HELD THAT - Once a person is acquitted then there is a presumption of innocence in his favour. The filing or pendency of an appeal against the acquittal cannot be regarded as a continuation of trial/prosecution and also cannot be treated to be pendency of judicial proceedings as the initial presumption of innocence gets re-enforced by the order of acquittal. The State is incorrect in submitting that the appeal against the acquittal is a continuation of trial. Once a person has been acquitted irrespective of the fact that whether any appeal against his acquittal is pending or not he becomes entitled for the benefits which otherwise would have accrued to him without there being any finding of guilt against the petitioner specifically when the account No.4856 is not a subject matter of the criminal trial. The stand taken by the State is beyond imagination and reconciliation either on factual aspect or on legal aspect. Once SHO Police Station Basai Tahsil and District- Datia (M.P.) had written to the Collector Datia that account No.4856 is not a part of Crime No.20/2014 registered at Police Station Basai Tahsil and District Datia and no document pertaining to account No.4856 has been made a part of the investigation as well as the chargesheet then the State had no authority whatsoever to keep the account of the petitioner in a frozen condition. Thus it is clear that the State has illegally withheld the amount of the petitioner in a most arbitrary and malafide manner. This Court is left with no other option but to direct the respondent No. 3 to immediately release the amount so deposited in account No.4856 - petition allowed with costs.

Summary

Issues:
1. Freezing of petitioner's account by authorities.
2. Appeal against acquittal as a continuation of prosecution.
3. Legality of withholding the petitioner's amount.

Analysis:

Issue 1: Freezing of petitioner's account by authorities
The petitioner filed a petition under Article 226 seeking to set aside the impugned order freezing the account. The Upper Tahsildar initially issued a restraint order to freeze the account, which was later withdrawn by the Naib Tahsildar on the Collector's instructions. Subsequently, the SHO of Police Station also directed to freeze the account. However, investigations revealed that the account was not related to the criminal case against the petitioner. The State argued that the appeal against acquittal justified keeping the amount frozen. The Court noted the acquittal of the petitioner and the absence of any other legal proceedings against him. It concluded that the appeal against acquittal does not constitute a continuation of prosecution, especially when the account in question was not part of the criminal trial.

Issue 2: Appeal against acquittal as a continuation of prosecution
The Court emphasized that once a person is acquitted, the presumption of innocence prevails, and filing an appeal does not equate to continuing the trial. The State's argument that the appeal against acquittal justifies withholding the amount was rejected. The Court held that an acquitted individual is entitled to the benefits as if no guilt was found, especially when the account in question was not linked to the criminal case. The State's insistence on keeping the account frozen was deemed illegal and arbitrary.

Issue 3: Legality of withholding the petitioner's amount
The Court found the State's actions in withholding the petitioner's amount as illegal and unjustified. It directed the respondent to release the amount deposited in the account immediately and awarded the petitioner costs for the wrongful withholding. The Court ordered the State to deposit a specified amount as costs, which the petitioner could withdraw. The judgment highlighted the petitioner's deprivation of funds without legal basis and emphasized the need to release the amount with accrued interest.

In conclusion, the High Court of Madhya Pradesh ruled in favor of the petitioner, directing the immediate release of the frozen amount and awarding costs to the petitioner. The judgment underscored the importance of upholding the presumption of innocence post-acquittal and criticized the State's unlawful withholding of the petitioner's funds.