The court held that a non-accused individual, who had no evidence of complicity in a fraud case and had no attachment orders issued against their accounts, should be allowed to defreeze their bank accounts and fixed deposits for personal expenses during their old age.

ORDER :

This writ petition is filed by the petitioner seeking Writ of Mandamus directing the 1st respondent to defreeze the bank account and fixed deposits of the petitioner and savings bank account held in the respondent Nos. 2 to 4/Banks and for consequential directions.

2. Heard learned counsel for the petitioner Sri Vinod Kumar Deshpande and the learned Special Public Prosecutor for CBI Sri N. Nagender for the respondent No.1.

3. Learned counsel for the petitioner submitted that the petitioner was the mother of Sri B.Ramalinga Raju, Sri B.Suryanarayana Raju and Sri B. Rama Raju. She was aged about 85 years. Her husband was a businessman. She opened an account in the respondent No.4 bank in her name and she also had fixed deposits with respondent Nos.2 and 3 at Jubilee Hills, Kalyannagar Branch. The Central Bureau of Investigation (CBI) has registered cases against her sons by showing them as accused in C.C.No.1,2,3 of 2010 and all the accounts of the accused, their family members and relatives were freezed. In the process, the bank account pertaining to the petitioner was also freezed by the 1st respondent. After detailed investigation, the 1st respondent filed charge sheet by showing few members as accused. The petitioner was not made as an accused nor the charge sheet referred to the accounts and fixed deposits of the petitioner as connected to the said case. The XXI ACMM-cum-Special Sessions Judge Nampally convicted the accused in the above case and sentenced them to imprisonment on 09.04.2015.

4. He further submitted that the petitioner was arrayed as accused before the Special Judge for Economic Offences, Hyderabad in C.C.No.134 of 2014 for insider trading. The Hon’ble Apex Court cleared the name of the petitioner in the proceedings launched by the Securities Exchange Board of India (SEBI) for alleged Insider Trading vide C.A.No.17303 of 2017, dated 14.05.2018. Subsequent to the judgment in C.A.No.17303 of 2017, the petitioner filed discharge petition in C.C.No.134 of 2014 and the same was pending for adjudication. Immediately after the Apex Court’s order, SEBI issued notice dated 21.06.2018 to the trading members of the Exchange indicating that the period of restraint imposed on the petitioner stood vacated. After the Hon’ble Apex Court Order, petitioner made an application to the respondents seeking to know the status of her accounts and also requested the respondents to defreeze her accounts and fixed deposits. The respondent Nos.2 to 4 replied vide letters dated 09.10.2018 and 05.11.2018 respectively that the 1st respondent had addressed letter dated 07.04.2015 to continue the freezing of the accounts and therefore, the accounts could not be defreezed. The letter dated 07.04.2015 was not served on the petitioner. The judgment in C.C.No.1,2,3 of 2010 was delivered two days thereafter on 09.04.2015. The petitioner also gave representation to the 1st respondent on 22.11.2018 to which the 1st respondent had not replied. The action of the 1st respondent in directing the respondent Nos.2 to 4 to continue freezing all the savings bank accounts and fixed deposits of the petitioner was arbitrary, illegal, contrary to law and without jurisdiction. The petitioner filed Income Tax returns before the Income Tax Authority. She declared the income in the above accounts to the Income Tax Department. The money in the SB Account and Fixed Deposits was the personal money of the petitioner, saved for any eventuality of expenditure during her old age. The petitioner was suffering from old age ailments and would need to operate the account to meet her day-to-day requirements. Her husband died in the year 2001. She needed money during her life time and prayed to allow the petition.

5. The counter affidavit was filed by the 1st respondent. The Special Public Prosecutor for CBI contended that the petitioner was one of the end beneficiaries of fraud perpetrated by the promoters of M/s.Satyam Computer Services Ltd. (M/s.SCSL) viz., Sri B.Ramalin