1. This Criminal Revision Case is filed by the petitioner/Canara Bank against the order dated 28.03.2017 passed by the learned Principal Sessions Judge, Chennai, in Crl.M.P.No.21812 of 2016 in C.C.No.58 of 2016.

2. The revision petitioner herein/Canara Bank has filed the above Crl.M.P.No.21812 of 2016 in C.C.No.58 of 2016 before the trial Court under Sections 102, 451 and 457 of Cr.P.C. r/w. Section 8(8) of the Prevention of Money Laundering Act, 2002 (hereinafter referred to as the Act) seeking to de-freeze the fixed deposits, held by the respondents with Canara Bank, Teynampet Branch, Chennai, vide FDR Nos.0416401003706, 0416401003713 and 0416401003759 dated 11.04.2014, 15.05.2014 and 08.08.2014 respectively and consequently, direct the first respondent herein to pay the said sum of Rs.13,22,96,000/- lying to the credit of the above fixed deposits along with interest accrued thereon to the petitioner/Bank.

3. The brief averments made in the petition filed before the trial Court are as follows:-

The petitioner/Canara Bank is the de facto complainant. M/s. Future Techniks Ltd., was one of the constituents of Canara Bank, Ambattur SME Branch, Padi, Chennai, and thereby, maintaining Current Account No.2412261002005 with them wherein, M.Balasubramaniam and Chitra Balasubramaniam are the Directors. In the course of such transactions M/s.Future Techniks Ltd., represented by its aforesaid Directors during 11.02.2013 to 19.03.2013 have transferred a sum of Rs.19,21,13,549/- under RTGS to the various customers under the Adhoc Over Draft Cash Credit Facility granted by the previous Chief Manager Mr.Jagadeesha. Thus, the then Chief Manager has allowed such Adhoc facility to the extent of Rs.19 crores by gross violation of the guidelines issued by the head office. Therefore, the aforesaid Chief Manager, while passing the cheques issued by the said company to the various accounts through NEFT/RTGS has not followed procedure with ulterior motive. Thus, the said then Chief Manager, by colluding with them and thereby caused heavy loss to the petitioner/Bank. In this connection, a case in Crime No.64 of 2013 was registered on the basis of the complaint given by the Bank to the Central Crime Branch, Chennai. The CCB also frozen the amount of Rs.6,29,37,738/- from the accounts of the accused and made necessary attachment. The first respondent registered ECIR No.1 of 2013 and based on the power contemplated under the Act also attached the amount lying in the bank accounts. The adjudicating authority confirmed the attachment.

4. The second respondent has re-registered the complaint under FIR No.RC.6/E/2014 and filed charge sheet in C.C.No.3 of 2015 before the XI Assistant Special Court for CBI Cases, Chennai. The fixed deposits are maturing on 14.04.2017, 15.05.2017 and on 08.08.2017 respectively. The Bank has filed an application in O.A.No.424 of 2014 on the file of the DRT-III, Chennai, for recovery of Rs.21,09,87,806.97 together with interest. Taking into consideration the final order of attachment, the accused have not preferred any revision and thereby it becomes final and in the above case, final report has been filed by the police. It is very much necessary that the amount involved in the provisional attachment has to be returned to the petitioner-Bank in order to reduce the liability of Rs.21,09,87,806.97 referred in O.A.No.424 of 2014. Since the petitioner/Bank is the lawful owner of the said sum, the respondents herein and others cannot have any valid objection for the same. The confiscation under Section 3 of the Act cannot be ordered when the ownership of such property is certain and definite.

5. The brief averments made in the counter filed by the first respondent are as follows:-

Respondent No.1 is enjoined to attach, submit within 30 days of attachment a complaint before the Adjudicating Authority and the Adjudicating Authorit