The court ruled that property acquired outside the investigation period may be acceptable as security for releasing frozen assets, provided it is deemed satisfactory.

ORDER :

P.G. AJITHKUMAR, J.

The petitioner is the accused in VC-02/2024/SCE of the Vigilance and Anti-Corruption Bureau, Special Cell, Ernakulam. The crime was registered alleging offences punishable under Section 13 (1)(e) read with Section 13 (2) of the Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988 (PC Act) and Section 13 (1)(b) read with Section 13 (2) of the PC Act (amended). Among the properties seized from the possession of the petitioner during investigation, there are fixed deposit receipts for a total amount of Rs.12,29,500/-. The petitioner filed Crl.M.P. No.1300 of 2024 before the Special Court seeking to release the said fixed deposit receipts on interim custody stating that the money was required for educational purposes of his son. The Special Court as per the order dated 02.11.2024 (Annexure A7) dismissed that petition. Challenging that order, this Crl.M.C. has been filed invoking the provisions under Section 528 of the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023.

2. A report of the investigating officer is placed on record by the learned Special Public Prosecutor along with memo dated 22.03.2025.

3. Heard the learned counsel for the petitioner and the learned Special Public Prosecutor (Vigilance).

4. Paragraph No.7 of the impugned order reads as follows:

“7. The allegation against the petitioner/accused, who is a public servant, is that he has amassed assets disproportionate to the known sources of his income during the check period. It is contended that the fixed deposits receipts and other bank documents pertain to the amounts deposited by the petitioner which he acquired during the check period and he has not disclosed his source of income for the same. The investigation is in the preliminary stage and if it is ultimately found that the petitioner has amassed disproportionate assets during the check period it would be liable for forfeiture. It is also submitted by the investigating officer that the property now offered as security is also acquired during the check period and it is intended to initiate attachment proceedings against the same. In the said circumstances, it is found that at this stage the petitioner is not entitled for release of the fixed deposit receipts and other security documents as prayed for.”

5. The order reflects that the request of the petitioner was declined essentially for the reason that the property offered as security was also acquired during the check period liable for forfeiture and the same could not be accepted as security for releasing the fixed deposit receipts. Thus, the view taken by the Special Court is that the fixed deposit receipts were liable to be returned provided, sufficient security was furnished.

6. The purpose of retaining the tainted properties is to attach and forfeit the same in the event of a conviction of the petitioner. Section 3 of the CRIMINAL LAW AMENDMENT ORDINANCE , 1944 read with Section 18A of the PC Act enables such attachment. Section 3 of the CRIMINAL LAW AMENDMENT ORDINANCE reads:

“3. Application for attachment of property:-

(1) Where the State Government or, as the case may be, the Central Government has reason to believe that any person has committed (whether after the commencement of this Ordinance or not) any scheduled offence, the State Government may, whether or not any Court has taken cognizance of the offence, authorise the making of an application to the District Judge within the local limits of whose jurisdiction the said person ordinarily resides or carries on business, for the attachment, under this Ordinance of the money or other property which the State Government, or as the case may be, the Central Government believes the said person to have procured by means of the offence, or if such money or property cannot for any reason be attached, of other property of the said pe