The central legal point established in the judgment is the importance of expeditious disposal of corruption cases and effective measures to ensure corruption-free public services.

JUDGMENT :

Common Prayer: Civil Miscellaneous Appeal filed under Section 11 of the Criminal Law Amendment Ordinance, 1944, pleased to set aside the order of the learned Principal Session Judge dated 09.11.2010 in Crl.M.P.No.1234 of 2009 and by allowing this appeal.

The Order dated 09.11.2010 passed in Crl.M.P.No.1234 of 2009 is under challenge in the present Civil Miscellaneous Appeal.

2. The petition was filed by the appellants before the Principal District Court, Chengalpet with the prayer to raise the attachment over the sum of Rs.48,00,000/- which is absolutely belongs to the appellant/petitioner. The Inspector of Police, Vigilance and Anti Corruption Department, Kancheepuram filed a counter and the issues were adjudicated. Accordingly, the trial Court has dismissed the petition, against which the present appeal is filed.

3. The contention of the appellant is that the said amount is no way connected with the alleged ill-gotten money and the said amount has been received, consequent to the sale agreement entered with third parties. Thus, the said money cannot be attached at all.

4. The learned Additional Government Pleader objected the said contention by stating that huge amount of ill-gotten money were seized by the Vigilance and Anti Corruption Department, during the search conducted in the year 2007 and properties were attached by the Court. Under these circumstances, the Order passed by the trial Court is to be confirmed and the issues sought to be adjudicated with reference to documents and evidences in the criminal case. In the event of considering the petition filed by the appellant before the Trial Court, it cannot be possible for the Vigilance Department Officials to recover the money. Consequently, in the event of acquittal, the said amount shall be repaid to the Government accounts. Thus, the balance of convenience is to be considered by this Court.

5. A Criminal Case was registered under the Vigilance and Anti Corruption Act. Admittedly, large number of properties were attached and ill-gotten money were also seized. The progress in the criminal case registered is still pending. The trial was commenced and few witnesses were already examined, remaining witnesses are yet to be examined. Under these circumstances, raising of attachment would cause prejudice to the interest of the Vigilance and Anti Corruption Department to conduct the trial effectively.

6. The findings of the trial Court reveals that the petitioner has stated that the amount of Rs.48,00,000/-, which was received from Tvl.S. Ramachandran and K.G. Pandian towards Real Estate Business transaction. In order to prove the same Ex.P3 to Ex.P11 were filed. But those documents were not produced by the petitioner at the time of House Search made by the Respondent Police and she has not chosen to examine Thiru.S.Ramachandran and Thiru.K.G.Pandian in order to prove the same. Further more, on the basis of the G.O.Ms.No.47, Revenue Department dated 04.02.2009, the properties of Raghunathan were attached and the petition filed by the petitioner before the Chief Judicial Magistrate, Chengalpattu in Crl.M.P.No.130 of 2008 for return of the amount is also dismissed by the Chief Judicial Magistrate, Chengalpattu. The appeal preferred as against the Order before the Hon'ble High Court of Judicature, Madras also dismissed in Crl.R.C.No.58 of 2010 dated 20.01.2010. Since the amount of Rs.48,00,000/- said to have been involved in a case in Kancheepuram V & AC Cr.No.25/AC/2007 under Section 13(2) r/w 13(1)(e) of Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988 and on the basis of the G.O.Ms.No.47, Revenue Department dated 04.02.2009 the properties of Raghunathan, who is the husband of this petitioner were attached, it is not feasible to raise the attachment as sought for. Considering the fact that the Vigilance and anti corruption crime number is pending, this Court is not inclined to allow this petition, since the case is at premature stage. The point is answered accordingly.

7. The facts p