SupremeToday Landscape Ad
Back
Next
Judicial Analysis Court Copy Headnote Facts Arguments Court observation
Listen Audio Icon Pause Audio Icon
judgment-img

2022 Supreme(AP) 1041

ANDHRA PRADESH HIGH COURT AT AMARAVATI
D. Ramesh, J.
M/s. Design Tech Systems – Appellant
Versus
The State of Andhra Pradesh – Respondent
Criminal Petition No. 3119 of 2022 and Criminal Revision Case No. 301 of 2022
Decided On : 12-08-2022

A criminal petition under Section 482 Cr.P.C. is maintainable despite the availability of a remedy under Section 397(1) Cr.P.C. in exceptional circumstances, such as when the impugned order is an abuse of the process of the court or securing the ends of justice.

Headnote:

CRIMINAL PETITION - SECTION 482 CR.P.C. - MAINTAINABILITY - INHERENT POWERS OF HIGH COURT - REVISION UNDER SECTION 397(1) CR.P.C. - INTERLOCUTORY ORDER - ABUSE OF PROCESS OF COURT - SECURING ENDS OF JUSTICE - EXCEPTIONAL CIRCUMSTANCES.

Fact of the Case:

Petitioner's bank account was frozen by the respondents under Section 102 Cr.P.C. in connection with a crime. The petitioner filed a petition under Sections 451 and 457 Cr.P.C. to permit defreezing of the account subject to certain conditions. The trial court imposed conditions, including directing the petitioner to deposit a certain amount in a fixed deposit and furnish bank statements. The petitioner challenged the order by filing a criminal petition under Section 482 Cr.P.C. and a criminal revision case under Section 397(1) Cr.P.C.

Finding of the Court:

The court held that the criminal petition under Section 482 Cr.P.C. was maintainable despite the availability of a remedy under Section 397(1) Cr.P.C. because the impugned order was an abuse of the process of the court and securing the ends of justice. The court observed that the trial court had not verified the facts and had erroneously directed the petitioner to deposit an amount that was not available in the account at the time of freezing.

Issues: 1. Whether a criminal petition under Section 482 Cr.P.C. is maintainable when a remedy is available under Section 397(1) Cr.P.C.? 2. Whether the impugned order was an abuse of the process of the court and securing the ends of justice?

Ratio Decidendi: 1. The court held that a criminal petition under Section 482 Cr.P.C. is maintainable despite the availability of a remedy under Section 397(1) Cr.P.C. in exceptional circumstances, such as when the impugned order is an abuse of the process of the court or securing the ends of justice. 2. The court found that the impugned order was an abuse of the process of the court and securing the ends of justice because the trial court had not verified the facts and had erroneously directed the petitioner to deposit an amount that was not available in the account at the time of freezing.

Final Decision: The court set aside the impugned order and remanded the matter to the trial court for fresh consideration.

COMMON ORDER

Criminal Petition No.3119 of 2022

D. Ramesh, J. - The Criminal petition is filed praying the Court to set aside the order dated 18.4.2022 passed in Crl.M.P.No.55 of 2022 by the Special Judge for SPE & ACB cases-cum-Additional Metropolitan Sessions Judge to the extent of imposing the conditions a) directing the petitioner to deposit Rs.23,29,77,675/- in fixed deposit in the name of Special Judge for SPE & ACB cases-cum-Additional Metropolitan Sessions Judge for a term of one year, subject to renewal and until further orders and b) furnishing bank statements of SBI Account No.38036630496 on the 1st date of the month to the investigating agency along with such other supporting documents as may be required by the investigating agency. Criminal Revision Case No.301 of 2022:

2. The criminal revision case is filed against the order dated 18.4.2022 in Crl.M.P.No.55/2022 filed under Section 451 and 457 Cr.P.C. on the file of the Special Judge for SPE & ACB cases-cum-Additional Metropolitan Sessions Judge, Vijayawada in FIR No.29/2021 of CID PS, AP, Mangalagiri registered u/Section 120(B), 166, 167, 418, 420, 465, 468, 471, 409, 201, 109 r/w 34 and 37 IPC and Sec.13(2) r/w 13(1)(c) & (d) of Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988.

3. As the issue involved in the criminal petition and criminal revision case is one and the same and against the same order of the Court below and in the same crime number but the criminal petition was filed by the petitioner/A4 and the criminal revision case was filed by the investigating agency, hence both the cases are being disposed of with a common order taking the Criminal Petition no.3119 of 2022 as a leading case as it is filed by accused no.4.

4. The present criminal petition is filed challenging the order dated 18.4.2022 on the file of the Special Judge for SPE & ACB cases-cum-Additional Metropolitan Sessions Judge, in Crl.M.P.No.55/2022 which was filed under Section 451 and 457 of Cr.P.C. permitting defreezing of petitioner's State Bank of India's bank account subject to certain conditions.

5. The respondent had freezed the current account bearing number 38036630496 of the petitioner/A4 company with State Bank of India, Pune, Maharashtra by invoking the powers under Sections 102 Cr.P.C. in connection with Crime No.29/2021 of Crime Investigation Department Economic Offence Wing-II, State of Andhra Pradesh for the alleged offences under Section 120-B, 166, 167, 148, 420, 465, 468, 471, 409, 201, 209, 109 r/w 34 and 37 IPC and Section 13(2) r/w 13(1)(c)(d) of Prevention of Corruption Act 1988. In the said crime, the petitioner is figured as A4.

6. The allegations made in the complaint is that the accused along with others hatched a criminal conspiracy and committed offences of criminal breach of trust with a common dishonest and fraudulent intention to divert Government funds by raising fake/forged/bogus invoices and diverted the public funds through associated shell companies of the accused in connivance with accused/public servants and caused wrongful loss to a tune of Rs.371crores.

7. Basing on the above said allegations, the crime is registered against the petitioner company and its Managing Director on 09.12.2021, at that time the amount which was there in the account was negative Rs.56,38,365/-. The reason being that the account was an over draft account which allowed customers to withdraw money even if the balance is zero or minus to the limit specified by bank. Pursuant to the said crime, the respondents have freezed the bank account. On 05.01.2022 on the date of freezing, the bank balance is Rs.2,42,34,249/. After freezing the State Bank of India Bank account of 06.01.2022, the petitioner received payment came from Atlas Copco company to a tune of Rs.37,93,574/- and another payment was deposited in the bank to a tune of Rs.20,324/- as cheque was returned the balance went to Rs.2,80,48,147/-. All these amounts were received from the petitioner's customers and the said sums were not connected to

              Click Here to Read the rest of this document
              1
              2
              3
              4
              5
              6
              7
              8
              9
              10
              11
              SupremeToday Portrait Ad
              supreme today icon
              logo-black

              An indispensable Tool for Legal Professionals, Endorsed by Various High Court and Judicial Officers

              Please visit our Training & Support
              Center or Contact Us for assistance

              qr

              Scan Me!

              India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!

              For Daily Legal Updates, Join us on :

              whatsapp-icon Back to top