Point of Law: Corruption case - Defreeze of bank account - Not allowed as prosecution against the applicant has not come to an end so far. There is a clear conclusion of the Investigation Agency against the applicant that he has amassed wealth, acquired assets, which are disproportionate to his income.

ORDER :

1. This Criminal Revision has been brought challenging the legality, propriety and correctness of the order dated 03.12.2020 passed in miscellaneous Criminal Case No. 28/2020 by Special Judge (Prevention of Corruption Act), Raipur, by dismissing the prayer of the applicant to defreeze the bank account, which has been seized in Crime No. 43 of 2016 by the respondent.

2. The facts of the case are these, that the applicant was charge-sheeted for trial in offence under Section 13(1)(e) read with 13(2) of Prevention of Corruption Act, which was registered as Criminal Case No. 06/2018. After framing of charge by the Special Court, the same was challenged in Cr. R. No. 352 of 2019 before this Court. This Criminal Revision was disposed off vide order dated 24.10.2019, in which the charges framed against the applicant were set aside and there was a direction to the Investigation Agency, to comply with the direction of the High Court in the order in W.P. (Cr.) No. 223/2018 and for obtaining a fresh sanction order. It is submitted that in fact the direction of this Court had been to re-investigate the case but no such re-investigation has been done. It is submitted that on prayer made by the applicant, some of the articles seized have been granted to the applicant on interim custody, in which the applicant has also received the passbooks of the bank accounts, which were under seizure. Even after receipt of the same, the applicant is unable to operate the bank accounts, as there is no specific direction of the Special Court for operation of the accounts. As the applicant has been discharged from the criminal case and at present there is no such case pending against him, therefore, he has entitlement to operate the bank accounts possessed by him. The learned trial Court has erroneously dismissed the prayer of the applicant for the reason that the case against the applicant is still pending after the filing of charge-sheet.

3. Reliance has been placed on the judgment of Delhi High Court in the case of Ms. Swaran Sabharwal vs. Commissioner of Police, 1987 SCC Online Del. 221 and on the judgment of High Court of Madras in the case between Padmini vs. The Inspector of Police, 2008 (3) CTC 657.

4. Reliance has also been placed on the order of this Court in W.P. (Cr.) No. 582/2020 decided on 14.12.2020 between Ram Naresh Tiwari vs. State of Chhattisgarh and Others and on the judgment of Bombay High Court in the case of Dr. Shashikant D. Karnik vs. State of Maharashtra, 2008 Cr. L.J. 148, it is submitted that the prohibitory order of the respondent regarding operation of the bank account is uncalled for in the present situation, hence, it is prayed that the revision petition may be allowed and the impugned order may be set aside and relief be granted to the applicant.

5. Learned State counsel for the respondent opposes the revision petition and submissions made in that respect. It is submitted that the operation of the bank accounts of the applicant had been freezed by the Investigation Agency regarding which, there is a mention in the case diary. The charge-sheet and the case has been filed against the applicant, although he has succeeded in getting a discharge order from this Court, but the prosecution against him has not come to an end. The prosecution shall commence after the compliance of the order of this Court in Cr. R. No. 352 of 2019 dated 24.10.2019, hence, under these circumstances, the amount in the bank accounts which can be regarded as property under seizure, which has been acquired unlawfully, cannot be allowed to be disbursed or disposed.

6. Relying on the judgment of Supreme Court in the case of State of Maharashtra vs. Tapas D. Neogy, (1999) 7 SCC 685, it is submitted that it was held by the Supreme Court, that the money in the bank account may be regarded as a property and the seizure of such property on suspicion that it is connected with commission of offence held as property within the meaning of Section 102 of Cr.P.C. and