IMPORTANT POINT
The court established that a trial court becomes functus officio after delivering a final judgment, and it must address claims regarding property seized during the trial, especially when no connection to the crime is established.

JUDGMENT

M. S. Karnik, J. - Heard learned counsel for the appellant and learned counsel appearing for CBI.

2. This is an appeal for quashing and setting aside the order dated 15/04/2023 passed by the trial Court in Misc. Application No. 570 of 2023 in CBI Special Case No. 60 of 2004.

3. The appellant is the wife of original accused no. 3. The original accused no.3 along with 5 other accused persons were charged in CBI Special Case No. 60 of 2004 for commission of offences under sections 409, 420, 468, 471, 477A read with 120B of the Indian Penal Code, 1860 ('IPC', for short) along with sections 13(2) read with 14(c)(d) of the Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988 ('PC Act', for short) and tried before the CBI, Mumbai in Special Case No. 60 of 2004.

4. The respondent no.1 is the Central Bureau of Investigation, Economic Offences Wing, Mumbai at whose instance the present RC came to be registered. The appellant's husband i.e. original accused no.3 was then serving as a Branch Manager in Canara Bank, Chunabhatti Branch, Mumbai in the year 2001-2002. By the judgment and order dated 09/03/2023, the Special Judge, CBI, convicted all the accused persons facing trial under sections 420, 468, 471 read with 120B of IPC. The accused were acquitted for the offences punishable under sections 409, 477A of IPC and for offences punishable under sections 13(c) read with 13(2) of the PC Act.

5. During the pendency of the trial, the account of the accused no.3 came to be freezed. During the course of investigation in 2003, a search warrant dated 20/03/2003 came to be issued by the Special Judge Greater Mumbai in the name of S. Mahalingam (accused no.3) at the flat where he was residing along with the present appellant. A Panchnama dated 21/03/2003 came to be drawn and 17 documents belonging to the appellant were taken charge. Two accounts were freezed by the Bank at the instance of CBI due to the alleged involvement of appellant's husband in the criminal case. The two accounts i.e. SB A/c. No. 16897 belonging to appellant and another SB A/c. No. 16534 jointly belonging to the appellant along with Miss. Maya Madhuwanti (daughter of S. Mahalingam and the appellant) maintained with Andhra Bank, Ghatkopar East, Mumbai were freezed by CBI, EOW, Mumbai with an amount of Rs. 2,55,181/- (Rupees Two lakhs Fifty-five Thousand One Hundred Eighty-One only) lying in the said accounts.

6. The appellant had preferred an application before the Special Judge for return of all the 17 documents and for defreezing the above mentioned accounts. By an order dated 21/07/2004, the trial Court had partly allowed the application and permitted the appellant to withdraw and utilize the amount of Rs.55,181/-. Balance amount of Rs. 2,00,000/- was directed to be invested by the respondent- CBI in the name of S.P.CBI.EOW, Mumbai in the State Bank of India, D.N. Road Branch, Fort, Mumbai initially for a period of 3 years to be renewed from time to time during the pendency of the trial.

7. The order order dated 21/07/2004 has a bearing on the present appeal and hence needs to be reproduced which reads thus:

'Heard the Ld. Advocates. Seen CBI say dated 14.6.2004 about Applicant Mrs. Latha Mahalingam. Seen and noted the contents of CBI report dated 24.6.2004 about the ownership of documents claimed by the Applicant. Seen and noted the contents of another CBl report dated 13.7.2004 about the position of S.B. Accounts Nos. 16897 and 16534 of the Applicant and Applicant jointly with her daughter Ms. Maya Madhuvanti respectively in Andhra Bank, Ghatkopar (West), Mumbai. It is the stand of the Applicant that documents enlisted by her at serial nos. I to 17 in para 2 of her application which are her own documents and have nothing to do with the alleged involvement of her spouse being Accused No.3 in a scam in Canara Bank covering this RC have been seized by CBI during their house search as per search list dated 21.3.2003 which should be returned to her forthwith. She has also pleaded that after h