IMPORTANT POINT
While amount deposited as condition for bail can be released under section 482, Cr.P.C. on acquittal, any other amount deposited not under court order, even if to avoid arrest, cannot be released under section 482. Petition under Article 226 would be the proper remedy.

JUDGMENT

Dipak Misra, J.

In this appeal challenge is to the orders dated 1.6.2006 and 4.7.2006 passed by the High Court of Delhi in Criminal M.C. No. 540 of 2004 in Crl. M. (M) No. 3009 of 2003 and Crl. M. No. 6349 of 2006 in Crl. M. (M) No. 3009 of 2003 respectively.

2. The facts which are essential to be exposited are that the husband of the Ist respondent, late Yash Pal Anand, was a merchant exporter of automotive components and was carrying on business in the name and style of M/s. Anand Craft Centre. The Central Bureau of Investigation (CBI) registered six cases against him for offences punishable under Sections 420, 468/471 of the Indian Penal Code (for short “IPC”) in the year 1994. Identical cases of equal numbers were registered against his brothers, namely, Ashok, Satish and Subhash. The allegations against the four accused persons are not required to be stated because the controversy pertains to a different realm altogether. As the factual matrix would demonstrate, late Yash Pal Anand had deposited a sum of Rs.22 lakhs with Engineering Export Promotion Council (EEPC), a channelising industry under the Ministry of Commerce. Other three brothers had also deposited the sum with the said agency. The trial continued in different cases against all the four brothers and, eventually, Ashok, Satish and Subhash were acquitted in all the cases by the trial court which extended them the benefit of doubt. As far as the husband of the Ist respondent is concerned, he expired before the conclusion of the trial and, therefore, the trial stood abated against him. Against the judgment of acquittal of the three brothers CBI preferred appeals which were dismissed on 27.5.2002 and no appeal was preferred assailing the judgment of affirmation of acquittal. Thereafter, they claimed refund of the amount by filing requisite applications before the learned trial Judge who, by order dated 13.8.2001, directed refund of the amount. The reason ascribed by the trial court for refund was that the said sum was deposited by the accused persons in compliance of the conditions of the bail order and it was clearly stated that the accused persons had deposited the money without prejudice to their rights and as they had been acquitted, they were entitled to refund of the money deposited with the EEPC.

3. As the amount was not refunded despite the order passed by the trial court, one of the brothers preferred Cri.M. (M) No. 3541 of 2001 before the High Court which passed an order directing the present appellant to refund the amount. The relevant part of the order dated 5.10.2001 passed in Crl. M. (M) No. 3541 of 2001 is as follows: -

“The question that is being raised before me, is whether the amount deposited by the accused persons pursuant to orders dated 12.10.1994 requiring the petitioner to deposit a sum of Rs.15,24,079/- with the second respondent by way of terms and condition of the bail and the petitioner during trial having been acquitted of all charges on 22.6.2001 is entitled to receive back the money that is deposited pursuant to the orders of this Court with the second respondent as a condition of bail. Learned counsel for the CBI submits that the CBI does not have the money and that the same was deposited with the second respondent and, therefore it is only the second respondent that can be directed to return the money deposited. I have heard learned counsel present for the parties the second respondent choosing not to be present, I direct that the amount deposited by the petitioner with the second respondent pursuant to orders of this Court and which was directed to be returned vide order dated 13.8.2001 shall be returned within a period of two weeks from date of service of the order.”

4. Thereafter, the 1st respondent filed Crl. M. (M) No. 3009 of 2003 with a prayer to command the respondent No. 2, the appellant herein, to refund the amount of Rs.22 lakhs on the ground that she was the sole legal heir; that the allegations in all the