Back
2019 Supreme(Bom) 2355
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY AT GOA BENCH
Prithviraj K. Chavan, J.
Imran Khan Son Of Late Ahmed Khan - Appellant
Versus
State Of Goa - Respondent
Criminal Writ Petition No. 30 of 2019, 31 of 2019
Decided On : 21-11-2019
Nitin Sardessai, Advocate, K. Noorani, Advocate, S.R. Rivankar, Advocate
Headnote:
Constitution of India ,1950 - Article 48-A and 51-A - Indian Penal Code,1860 - Sections 120-B, 119, 166, 277, 278, 290, 379, 409, 418, 420, 430, 465, 468, 471 - Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988 - Section 13(1)(d) and 13(2) - Mines and Minerals (Development and Regulation) Act, 1957 - Section 4, 9, 9(A), 19 read with 21 - Mineral Concessions Rules, 1960 – Offence of criminal conspiracy – Cheating – Charged - Petitioner is a businessman, who is a partner of "Imran Traders" having its office - Said firm is engaged in business of ore trading and is registered with mining department of respondent no.1 - Petitioner is an income tax assessee holding pan card no. An offence came to be registered against petitioner with crime branch bearing Crime No. - Petitioner tried to access his bank accounts for funds required for day today expenses of his family members, he came to know that because of freezing of accounts by respondent no.2 he could not withdraw any amount even by using his ATM card - Petitioner learnt from his bankers that respondent no.2 vide letter under reference no.PI/SIT/CR.No. dated instructed bankers of petitioner namely Bank of India, Margao Branch to freeze accounts of petitioner and his family members – Held, Honble Supreme Court has elaborately discussed the importance of natural resources which are assets of nation and citizens, inter alia, obligation of citizens including Central and State Government to conserve and not to waste such valuable resources - Supreme Court has also reiterated Article 48-A and 51-A of Constitution of India emphasizing duty upon every citizens to protect and improve natural environment including various forests, lakes, rivers and wild life - It is crystal clear that apart from initiating proceedings for commission of an offence under MMDR Act on basis of a complaint would not be a bar for police to take legal action against persons for committing theft of sands and minerals by exercising powers under Code of Criminal Procedure and then to submit a final report to magistrate taking cognizance of such offences against such persons - Petitioner, as already stated hereinabove, is at liberty to move Sessions Court to defreeze amount which according to him is essential to meet expenses - Learned Sessions Judge may exercise his discretion and pass necessary orders in accordance with law - Petitions stand disposed of.
JUDGMENT
Prithviraj K. Chavan, J. - Rule, returnable forthwith. Heard finally with the consent of the learned Senior Counsel and learned Public Prosecutor. Discretionary power of this Court under Article 227 of the Constitution of India read with Section 482 of Cr.P.C. have been invoked by the petitioners by way of these two Writ Petitions challenging an order dated 14/12/2018 passed by the learned Sessions Judge, Panaji in Criminal Misc. Application No.142/2018 by which the learned Sessions Judge partly allowed the application of the petitioner Imran Khan under Section 457 of Cr.P.C. directing defreezing of an amount of Rs.21,50,00,000/- (Rupees twenty one crores fifty lakhs only) from his current account with the Bank of India, inter alia, directing execution of an indemnity bond.
2. Shorn of unnecessary details, facts absolutely necessary for disposal of these two Writ Petitions can be summarised thus: The petitioner Imran Khan is a businessman, who is a partner of "Imran Traders" having its office in Fatorda, Margao, Goa. The said firm is engaged in the business of ore trading and is registered with the mining department of the respondent no.1. The petitioner is an income tax assessee holding pan card no.ANQPK3181K. An offence came to be registered against the petitioner with crime branch bearing Crime No.15/2013 under Sections 120-B, 119, 166, 277, 278, 290, 379, 409, 418, 420, 430, 465, 468, 471 IPC and Section 13(1)(d) and 13(2) of the Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988 along with Section 4, 9, 9(A), 19 read with 21 of the Mines and Minerals (Development and Regulation) Act, 1957, Mineral Concessions Rules, 1960.
3. The respondent no.2 instructed the bankers of the petitioner namely Bank of India, Margao Branch to freeze the account of the petitioner and his family members. The petitioner was arrested by the respondent no.2 on 12/09/2017. Subsequently, he was enlarged on bail on 15/09/2017.
4. When the petitioner tried to access his bank accounts for funds required for day today expenses of his family members, he came to know that because of the freezing of the accounts by the respondent no.2 he could not withdraw any amount even by using his ATM card. The petitioner learnt from his bankers that the respondent no.2 vide letter under reference no.PI/SIT/CR.No.15-13/761/2017 dated 05/10/2017 instructed the bankers of the petitioner namely Bank of India, Margao Branch to freeze the accounts of the petitioner and his family members.
5. An application moved by the respondents before this Court vide Criminal Misc. Application (Main) No.280/2017 on 30/10/2017 seeking cancellation of the bail of the petitioner has been rejected on 10/11/2017.
6. The petitioner, thereafter, addressed a communication dated 24/11/2017 to the respondent calling upon it to defreeze the accounts frozen by respondent no.2 and give custody of the same to the petitioner. The petitioner expressed his readiness and willingness to execute a bond to produce the same before the Court as and when required to do so as per Section 102(3) of Cr.P.C. The respondent no.2, however, rejected the request of the petitioner vide its letter dated 29/11/2017.
7. The petitioner moved Criminal Misc. Application no.212/2017 under Section 457 read with Section 451 of Cr.P.C. before the Sessions Judge, Panaji on 30/11/2017 seeking defreezing of the accounts frozen by the respondent no.2. The application was opposed by respondent no.2 by filing its response on 16/12/2017. The learned Sessions Judge partly allowed the application of the petitioner seeking defreezing of his accounts and accounts of his family members, inter alia, directing defreezing of an amount of Rs.25,00,000/- (Rupees Twenty Five Lakhs only).
8. Being aggrieved by the order of the Sessions Judge dated 22/01/2018, defreezing the amount only to the extent of Rs.25,00,000/- (Rupees Twenty Five Lakhs only), the petitioner moved this Court by way of Criminal Writ Petition No.25/2018. The said criminal writ petitio
