Madhya Pradesh High Court
Diocese Of Jabalpur vs State Of Madhya Pradesh on 11 August, 2023
Author: Sheel Nagu
Bench: Sheel Nagu, Avanindra Kumar Singh
IN THE HIGH COURT OF MADHYA PRADESH
AT JABALPUR
BEFORE
HON'BLE SHRI JUSTICE SHEEL NAGU
&
HON'BLE SHRI AVANINDRA KUMAR SINGH
CR.R. No.1741 of 2023
BETWEEN:-
DIOCESE OF JABALPUR THROUGH ITS
SECRETARY REV. SUHINDRA NILESH
SINGH S/O LATE SHRI SURENDRA SINGH
REGISTERED OFFICE AT 2772, DIOCESE OF
JABALPUR, NAPIER TOWN JABALPUR,
(MADHYA PRADESH)
.....PETITIONER
(BY SHRI BRIAN D'SILVA - SENIOR ADVOCATE WITH SHRI
ABHISHEK DILRAZ - ADVOCATE)
AND
STATE OF MADHYA PRADESH THROUGH
ECONOMIC OFFENCE WINGH JABALPUR,
(MADHYA PRADESH)
.....RESPONDENT
(BY SHRI MADHUR SHUKLA - ADVOCATE GENERAL)
___________________________________________________________
Reserved on : 03.07.2023
Pronounced on : 11.08.2023
_______________________________________________________
- 2 -
This petition having been heard and reserved for admission,
coming on for pronouncement this day, the Court pronounced the
following:
ORDER
Revisional powers u/S.397 r/w 401 of Cr.P.C. are invoked to assail interlocutory order dated 06.12.2022 of learned Trial Judge, Jabalpur dismissing an application of petitioner filed u/S.451/457 of Cr.P.C. seeking release of certain bank accounts which were frozen in connection with offence punishable u/Ss.406, 420, 467, 468, 471, 109, 409, 120(B) of IPC and 7, 13(1)(b), 13(2) of Prevention of Corruption Act (Amended Act 2018), 1988 registered against the erstwhile Bishop of petitioner and few other accused.
2. Learned senior counsel, Shri Brian D' Silva with Shri Abhishek Dilraz, learned counsel for petitioner and Shri Madhur Shukla, learned counsel for Prosecuting Agency are heard.
3. This is second visit of petitioner to this Court after exhausting the first one in shape of Cr.R. No.4775 of 2022 which was finally disposed of on 22.12.2022 vide Annexure P/8, whereby the same impugned order dated 06.12.2022 as challenged herein, was assailed. This Court declined to interfere in the matter by dismissing Cr.R. No.4775/2022 with direction to the Investigating Agency to move an application before the District Judge, Jabalpur within a period of 10 days starting from 22.12.2023 with liberty to petitioner to appear and raise the objection before the Court below. It was further observed that in case prosecution fails to move an application
- 3 -
within the stipulated period, the petitioner may revisit the Court by filing a fresh revision petition. As such, petitioner is before this Court in the present criminal revision.
4. Learned senior counsel for petitioner contends that no application has been moved by the prosecution before the trial Court under the provisions of Criminal Law Amendment Ordinance, 1944 (for brevity "Ordinance, 1944") despite expiry of time period prescribed in the first round of litigation, and therefore, petitioner is compelled to approach this Court in the present revision petition. It is further submitted that no such application under Ordinance, 1944 in respect of eight (8) bank accounts belonging to petitioner and its Institutions have been moved by the Prosecuting Agency till date. Thus, despite no request for attachment of bank accounts having been sought by Prosecuting Agency, the bank accounts have been frozen. It is also alleged that charge-sheet in the matter has been filed in December, 2022 and therefore, investigation is over. It is also contended that because of accounts having been frozen, the entire activity of petitioner in various Institutions attached to it have come to a standstill leading to denial of right to propagate and profess religious activities under Article 26 of Constitution. In this regard, reliance is placed in Sri Jayendra Saraswathy Swamigal (II) Vs. State of T.N. and others, (2005) 8 SCC 771 (Para 13) and Teesta Atul Setalvad Vs. State of Gujarat, (2018) 2 SCC 372 (Para 22).
5. Per contra, learned counsel for Prosecuting Agency/EOW, Shri Shukla contends that allegations against erstwhile Bishop of petitioner are
- 4 -
serious in as much as siphoning of funds of educational Institutions run by petitioner for non educational purposes and amassing personal wealth several times the non source of income. Shri Shukla further informs that 46 bank accounts have already been released, and therefore, mere freezing of 8 accounts may not cause any prejudice. Learned counsel also contends that an application dated 30.12.2022 has already been moved u/S.3 of Ordinance, 1944 seeking attachment of bank accounts. Shri Shukla further informs that orders by trial Court have already been passed of interim attachment of 7 bank accounts. Lastly, Shri Shukla urges that further investigation u/S.173(8) of Cr.P.C. is still pending against the accused and thus, de-freezing of bank accounts as sought may prejudice the further investigation.
6. From the aforesaid rival contentions of learned counsel for rival parties, it is obvious that the Prosecuting Agency have already sought freezing of certain bank accounts. In case, any such application has been made before the trial Court u/S.3 of Ordinance, 1944, then it would be appropriate that this Court refrains from entering into the prolixity of identifying bank accounts, in regard to which, prayer for seizing/attachment has been made or not.
7. This exercise ought to be conducted and concluded by the learned trial Judge.
8. In view of above, this Court declines interference on merits and relegates the petitioner before the trial Court with following directions:-
- 5 -
(i) In case, any application for attachment has been made by the Prosecuting Agency u/S.3 of Ordinance, 1944 qua eight (8) bank accounts as sought herein, then claim of petitioner as raised herein be considered and appropriate order be passed in accordance with law as expeditiously as possible preferably within a period of two months.
(ii) In case, no such application of the prosecution u/S.3 of Ordinance, 1944 is pending before the trial Court, then the petitioner is at liberty to file a fresh application u/S.451 r/w 457 of Cr.P.C. which shall be decided by the trial Court on its own merits as expeditiously as possible preferably within a period of two months.
(iii) The trial Court shall be careful that in case any bank account is suspected to contain any tainted money involved in the offence in question, then no order of defreezing or release shall be passed.
(iv) No order as to cost.
8. With the aforesaid observations, present revision petition stands dismissed.
(SHEEL NAGU) (AVANINDRA KUMAR SINGH )
JUDGE JUDGE
Sateesh
Digitally signed by SATEESH
KUMAR SEN
Date: 2023.08.11 15:13:04 +05'30'