The High Court will not exercise its inherent or revisional jurisdiction to re-examine evidence or overturn concurrent factual findings of lower courts absent perversity, especially where there is prima facie material suggesting funds frozen under criminal law are proceeds of an alleged fraud.

These petitions are preferred by a common petitioner - accused No.2 in Crime No.413/2021, calling in question the orders dated 27.09.2021 and 18.05.2022, both passed by the I Additional Chief Metropolitan Magistrate, Bengaluru, on two applications, both filed under Sections 451 and 457 of the Cr.P.C. in Crime No.413/2021, one preferred by the petitioner herein and another by respondent No.2 – complainant. The application preferred by the complainant seeking interim custody of the seized amount in P.F.No.14/2021 of ₹1,12,15,884/- lying in the account of the petitioner in M/s.IDBI Bank comes to be allowed on certain conditions in terms of the order dated 27.09.2021 and the application preferred by the petitioner seeking defreezement of his account held in M/s.IDBI Bank, C.G.Road Branch, Ahmedabad, comes to be rejected by the concerned Court in terms of the order dated 18.05.2022. These two orders are challenged before the concerned Revisional Court in Crl.R.P.Nos.34/2024 and 475/2022 respectively, both of which comes to be dismissed by affirming the order of the concerned Court in terms of its orders, both dated 11.11.2024.

2. Heard Sri Bharath Kumar V., learned counsel for petitioner, Sri K. Nageshwarappa, learned High Court Government Pleader for respondent No.1 and Sri K.B.K.Swamy, learned counsel for respondent No.2.

3. For the sake of convenience, facts obtaining in Crl.P.No.1022/2025, which are similar in companion petition on the question in the lis involved, would be narrated.

4. Facts in brief, germane, are as follows:

A complaint comes to be registered on 26.08.2021 by respondent No.2 – complainant before respondent No.1 - police station alleging that he was contacted by one Rato Gibson Jude, who claimed to be representing M/s.Centric Pharmaceutical Limited through an electronic mail on 19.07.2021 and that M/s.Centric Pharmaceutical Limited is based in United Kingdom and is interested in procuring Bio Champacalin Fluid, which is one of the pharmaceutical products available in India. On the same day, by another electronic mail, the said person – Rato Gibson Jude claimed that the said pharmaceutical products needed by the Company were available with the supplier in India - one M/s.Sagar Enterprises - Accused No.1. The said person has also claimed that if the complainant procures the product at a price of U.S.D. 4,000 per litre from M/s. Sagar Enterprises, the same could be sold by respondent No.2 - complainant at U.S.D. 8,500 per litre to M/s.Centric Pharmaceutical Limited. The business proposal rang the bells of accused No.1 and respondent No.2 - complainant. Communications between the three galore seeking to purchase said products at an agreed quantity on receipt of 100% payment.

Respondent No.2 - complainant procured a sample of 1 litre from accused No.1 by making a payment of ₹3,00,000/- into the bank account of accused No.1. Disputes arose with regard to payment or payment of amount into the hands of accused Nos.1 and 2. The complainant is said to have parted the entire material but, received no money. Therefore, the complaint comes to be registered on 26.08.2021, against unknown persons, on account of payment being made and no material being received. The said complaint becomes a crime in Crime No.413/2021, for offences punishable under Sections 419 and 420 of the IPC read with Section 66D of the Information Technology Act, 2000. The police then debit freeze the account of the petitioner in terms of the order of the Magistrate on the requisition application so f