Back
ANDHRA PRADESH HIGH COURT AT AMARAVATI
D. Ramesh, J.
Design Tech Systems Pvt. Ltd. – Appellant
Versus
State of Andhra Pradesh – Respondent
Criminal Petition No. 3119 of 2022, Criminal Revision Case No. 301 of 2022
Decided On : 12-08-2022
CRIMINAL PETITION - MAINTAINABILITY - INHERENT POWERS OF HIGH COURT - SECTION 482 CR.P.C. - REVISION - SECTION 397 CR.P.C. - INTERLOCUTORY ORDER - ABUSE OF PROCESS - SECURING ENDS OF JUSTICE - MONEY IN BANK ACCOUNT AS PROPERTY - SEIZURE BY POLICE - CLAIM BY ACCUSED - PETITION UNDER SECTIONS 451 AND 457 CR.P.C. - REVISION UNDER SECTION 397(1) CR.P.C. - INHERENT POWERS UNDER SECTION 482 CR.P.C. - 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 registered against the petitioner company and its Managing Director. The petitioner filed a petition under Sections 451 and 457 Cr.P.C. to permit him to operate his bank account and withdraw the seized money. The trial court passed an order directing the bank to keep an amount of Rs.23,29,77,675.00 from the petitioner's account in a fixed deposit for a term of one year. The petitioner challenged this order by filing a criminal petition under Section 482 Cr.P.C.
Finding of the Court:
The court held that the petition under Section 482 Cr.P.C. is maintainable in exceptional cases, even if a remedy is available under Section 397 Cr.P.C. The court found that the impugned order was passed without verifying the records that subsequently the petitioner had received an amount from various clients to run the business. Hence, the said amount could not be frozen by virtue of the impugned order.
Issues: 1. Whether a petition under Section 482 Cr.P.C. is maintainable when a remedy is available under Section 397 Cr.P.C.? 2. Whether the impugned order was passed without verifying the records that subsequently the petitioner had received an amount from various clients to run the business?
Ratio Decidendi: 1. The court held that the inherent powers of the High Court under Section 482 Cr.P.C. can be invoked to challenge an order passed under Section 451 Cr.P.C., even if a revision lies against the said order under Section 397(1) Cr.P.C., in exceptional circumstances. Such exceptional circumstances include cases where the impugned order is an abuse of the process of the Court or is necessary to secure the ends of justice. 2. The court found that the impugned order was passed without verifying the records that subsequently the petitioner had received an amount from various clients to run the business. Hence, the said amount could not be frozen by virtue of the impugned order.
Final Decision: The court referred the criminal petition and the criminal revision case to the Division Bench for fresh consideration.
JUDGMENT
D.RAMESH,J. - The Criminal petition is filed praying the Court to set aside the order dtd. 18/4/2022 passed in Crl.M.P.No.55 of 2022 by the Special Judge for SPE and ACB cases-cum-Additional Metropolitan Sessions Judge to the extent of imposing the conditions a) directing the petitioner to deposit Rs.23,29,77,675.00 in fixed deposit in the name of Special Judge for SPE and 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 dtd. 18/4/2022 in Crl.M.P.No.55/2022 filed under Sec. 451 and 457 Cr.P.C. on the file of the Special Judge for SPE and ACB cases-cum-Additional Metropolitan Sessions Judge, Vijayawada in FIR No.29/2021 of CID PS, AP, Mangalagiri registered u/Sec. 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) and (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 dtd. 18/4/2022 on the file of the Special Judge for SPE and ACB cases-cum-Additional Metropolitan Sessions Judge, in Crl.M.P.No.55/2022 which was filed under Sec. 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 Ss. 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 Sec. 120-B, 166, 167, 148, 420, 465, 468, 471, 409, 201, 209, 109 r/w 34 and 37 IPC and Sec. 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.371.00crores.
7. Basing on the above said allegations, the crime is registered against the petitioner company and its Managing Director on 9/12/2021, at that time the amount which was there in the account was negative Rs.56,38,365.00. 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 5/1/2022 on the date of freezing, the bank balance is Rs.2,42,34,249.00 . After freezing the State Bank of India Bank account of 6/1/2022, the petitioner received payment came from Atlas Copco company to a tune of Rs.37,93,574.00 and another payment was deposited in the bank to a tune of Rs.20,324.00 as cheque was returned the balance went to Rs.2,80,48,147.00. All these amounts were received from the petitioner's customers and the said sums were not connected to APSSDC funds. The said fact was also co
The inherent powers of the High Court under Section 482 Cr.P.C. can be invoked to challenge an order passed under Section 451 Cr.P.C., even if a revision lies against the said order under Section 397....
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 abu....
Freezing of bank accounts under Section 102 Cr.P.C is lawful during investigations without prior notice, and challenges to such orders are not maintainable when alternative remedies exist.
The provisions of the Criminal Law (Amendment) Ordinance, 1944, for the continuation of attachment during an appeal apply only to assets attached under the Ordinance.
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
Scan Me!
India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!
For Daily Legal Updates, Join us on :
Back to top
