Karnataka High Court
Sri. Gnanesh Byrappa vs The State Of Karnataka on 14 June, 2018
Author: Aravind Kumar
Bench: Aravind Kumar
1
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU
DATED THIS THE 14TH DAY OF JUNE, 2018
BEFORE
THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE ARAVIND KUMAR
WRIT PETITION NO.14816 OF 2018 (GM-RES)
BETWEEN:
SRI GNANESH BYRAPPA
AGED ABOUT 34 YEARS,
S/O. BYRAPPA,
PROPRIETOR,
M/S. HIGH LIFE,
NO.44/2, 'B' CROSS,
EAST LINK ROAD,
MALLESHWARAM,
BENGALURU.
... PETITIONER
(BY SRI RAM BHAT, ADV.)
AND:
1. THE STATE OF KARNATAKA
REPRESENTED BY ITS
PRINCIPAL SECRETARY TO GOVERNMENT,
DEPARTMENT OF HOME AFFAIRS,
VIDHANA SOUDHA,
BENGALURU.
2. THE INSPECTOR OF POLICE
BANASHANKARI POLICE STATION,
BANASHANKARI,
BENGALURU.
2
3. THE SENIOR MANAGER
STATE BANK OF INDIA,
KUMARA PARK, 1ST MAIN ROAD,
SHESHADRIPURAM,
BENGALURU.
... RESPONDENTS
(BY SRI VIJAY KUMAR A. PATIL, A.G.A., FOR R-1 & 2;
SRI B. R. VISHWANATH, ADV., FOR R-3)
***
THIS WRIT PETITION IS FILED UNDER ARTICLES 226
AND 227 OF THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA, PRAYING TO
DIRECT THE RESPONDENTS TO RELEASE THE CASH
CREDIT A/C NO.30115121058 OF THE PETITIONER WITH
RESPONDENT NO.3 - BANK BY CONSIDERING THE
REPRESENTATION DATED 30-3-2018 TO RESPONDENT
NO.2 AND REPRESENTATION DATED 31-3-2018 TO
RESPONDENT NO.3 AS PER ANNEXURES - A & B
RESPECTIVELY.
THIS WRIT PETITION IS COMING ON FOR ORDERS,
THIS DAY, THE COURT MADE THE FOLLOWING:
ORDER
Petitioner being aggrieved by the in action of respondent Nos.2 and 3 in not considering the representations dated 30-3-2018 and 31-3-2018 (Annexures - 'A' and 'B') respectively is before this Court 3 seeking for a writ of mandamus to respondent Nos.2 and 3 to consider the same.
2. Petitioner is engaged in the business of selling batteries and allied products under the name and style of M/s. High Life. For the said purpose, he has opened a bank account with cash credit facility with respondent No.3 - Bank and has been operating for past ten years. The Cash Credit Account No.30115121058 of the petitioner has been freezed as per the notice issued by respondent No.2. Hence, petitioner has submitted representations to respondent Nos.2 and 3 seeking permission to operate the account and alleging there has been no consideration of representations submitted by him, petitioner is before this Court.
3. According to petitioner, he is engaged in running battery business and had availed cash facility from respondent No.3 - Bank. Further, one Mr. Sutram 4 Suresh, who claims to be a Wealth Manager of M/s. Vikram Investment Company, had advised and suggested to the petitioner to invest money in the firm of M/s. Vikram Investment Company and as such, petitioner claims to have invested a sum of Rs.25,00,000/- and received dividend cum profit to the tune of Rs.38,59,341/- on various dates commencing from 2014 to 2017. It is the contention of the petitioner that whatever he has earned on the investment made with the said Company, he has declared the same in his Income Tax Returns and has also paid taxes. Petitioner has also claimed that he has paid commission to the said Mr. Sutram Suresh. It is also the case of the petitioner that on 27-3-2018, respondent No.3 informed that cash Credit Account has been frozen as per the direction issued by respondent No.2 - Police. Contending on account of cash credit having been frozen by his bankers, the petitioner was 5 unable to pay taxes and other dues payable to statutory authorities and as such, for de-freezing his account, representations have been submitted, which have not been considered and as such, he prays for issuing directions to the respondents - Authorities to consider his representations.
4. Under similar circumstances, co-ordinate Bench of this Court in Writ Petition Nos.13516 - 13518 of 2018 disposed of on 4-4-2018 had held that Police would not be justified in freezing the account belonging to petitioners therein, unless and until there is strong suspicion against the petitioners and in order to balance the conflicting interest of the petitioners, with that of the interest of the Investigating Agency, respondent Nos.1 and 2 were directed to de-freeze the account belonging to the petitioners therein, provided petitioner No.1 therein submitted a bond for Rs.20,00,000/- 6 before the learned Sessions Judge, where proceedings were pending.
5. Sri K. Rama Bhat, learned counsel appearing for the petitioner, prays for similar directions being issued in the present case. He would also submit that petitioner herein is also ready and willing to submit or furnish a bond before respondent Nos.2 and 3 for difference of money, namely the amount invested by the petitioner with M/s. Vikram Investment Company and amount received by the petitioner in return, i.e. Rs.13,59,341/- (Rs.38,59,341/- minus Rs.25,00,000/-).
6. In that view of the matter, this Court is of the considered view, the account of petitioner shall be de-freezed by passing an order and intimating respondent No.2 in the event of petitioner furnishing a bond for the difference of money, namely the amount invested by the petitioner (Rs.25,00,000/-) as against 7 the amount received by him (Rs.38,59,341/-) as it would meet the ends of justice and balance the equities. Hence, directing the petitioner to submit a bond for difference of amount, i.e. Rs.13,59,341/- (Rs.38,59,341/- minus Rs.25,00,000/-) before the Principal and District Sessions Judge, Bengaluru, in Crime No.73 of 2018, and on such bond being furnished, the learned trial Judge shall issue directions to de-freeze the account as ordered herein above, the petition stands disposed of.
SD/-
JUDGE kvk