9911796707
|
Home
Forgot password New User/ Regiser ⇒ Register to get Live Demo
2020 (8) TMI 945 - HC - Indian LawsSeeking to quash the order passed by the Special Judge, C.B.I. - Direction to the C.B.I. to defreeze the bank account - criminal conspiracy with the co-ccused - utilized/transferred/ misappropriated the amounts - Offences punishable under Sections 120B/406/409/420 of the Indian Penal Code as well as u/s 13 (2) read with Section 13 (1) (d) of Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988 - HELD THAT - The concerned banks with whom the petitioner is having its accounts have not been impleaded as a parties to this writ application and no relief has been sought against such banks. It is evident that though the petitioner has submitted a proposal of compromise, it has been accepted by the bank and though upon the petitioner giving an undertaking to deposit the said compromise amount of Rs.16,35,00,000/- by way of installments the petitioner was given the privilege of anticipatory bail provisionally, yet undisputedly, the petitioner has neither surrendered nor deposited any amount with the State Bank of India, Hatia Branch. There is no dispute that further investigation of the case u/s 173(8) Cr.P.C. is going on. Thus, in the absence of any material to suggest that any bank account has been freezed during the investigation of the instant case no order to defreeze any bank account can be passed. No merit in the writ application. Accordingly, this writ application being without any merit is dismissed.
Issues Involved:
1. Quashing of the order dated 24.09.2019 by the Special Judge, C.B.I., Ranchi. 2. Direction to the C.B.I. to defreeze the bank account of the petitioner. Summary: Issue 1: Quashing of the order dated 24.09.2019 by the Special Judge, C.B.I., Ranchi The petitioner filed a writ petition u/s Article 226 of the Constitution of India to quash the order dated 24.09.2019 passed by the Special Judge, C.B.I., Ranchi in connection with R.C. Case No.12(A) of 2017-R. The case involves allegations against the petitioner, the Managing Partner of M/s. Bhanu Construction, for criminal conspiracy with a co-accused Deputy Manager of State Bank of India, Hatia Branch, leading to the transfer and misappropriation of Rs.100,01,41,016/- belonging to "Jharkhand Rajya Madhyan Bhojan Pradhikaran." The petitioner argued that the amount was transferred due to a clerical error and that the matter has been settled with the bank. Despite this, the Special Judge, C.B.I., Ranchi rejected the petitioner's application to defreeze the bank account. The petitioner cited several Supreme Court judgments to support the argument for defreezing the account, including Teesta Atul Setalvad v. State of Gujarat, Sunderbhai Ambalal Desai v. State of Gujarat, Basavva Kom Dyamangouda Patil v. State of Mysore, and M.T. Enrica Lexie and Anr. v. Doramma and Ors. Issue 2: Direction to the C.B.I. to defreeze the bank account of the petitioner The petitioner sought a direction to the C.B.I. to defreeze the bank account, arguing that the freezing of the account was due to a mistake by the State Bank of India, Hatia Branch. The petitioner also mentioned that a compromise proposal was accepted by the bank, and the petitioner was granted provisional anticipatory bail with conditions to deposit certain amounts, which the petitioner failed to comply with. The C.B.I. opposed the petition, stating that further investigation u/s 173(8) Cr.P.C. is ongoing and that defreezing the account would be premature and could lead to misappropriation of funds. Court's Decision: The court found no material evidence to suggest that the C.B.I. had frozen any bank account during the investigation. It was noted that the concerned banks were not impleaded as parties to the writ application, and no relief was sought against them. The court observed that the petitioner had not complied with the conditions of the provisional anticipatory bail and that further investigation is ongoing. Consequently, the court dismissed the writ application, stating that there is no merit in the petition and no order to defreeze any bank account can be passed in the absence of any material evidence.
|
