Supreme Court - Daily Orders
Tikaram Chandrawanshi vs The State Of Madhya Pradesh on 9 January, 2023
Bench: S. Ravindra Bhat, Dipankar Datta
1
IN THE SUPREME COURT OF INDIA
CRIMINAL APPELLATE JURISDICTION
CRIMINAL APPEAL NO.87/2023
(ARISING OUT OF SLP (CRL.) NO.10005/2022)
TIKARAM CHANDRAWANSHI APPELLANT(S)
VERSUS
THE STATE OF MADHYA PRADESH RESPONDENT(S)
O R D E R
Leave granted.
The appellant had approached the Trial Court for de-freezing
his saving Bank Account No.653026020033 under Section 317 Cr.P.C.
which was declined. The High Court concurred with the order in a
revision.
The appellant alongwith others has been arraigned as accused
for committing of offences under Sections 407, 409, 420 and 201
IPC; Section 13(1)(d) and 13(2) of the Prevention of Corruption
Act, 1988 and Section 3/7 of the Essential Commodities Act, 1955.
It appears that the charge-sheet was filed and the appellant is
Signature Not Verified
facing trial.
Digitally signed by During the pendency of these proceedings, appellant
Indu Marwah
Date: 2023.01.12
10:18:03 IST
Reason:
applied to the Trial Court for de-freezing his account which was
attached. In response to the application, the police authorities
2
expressed no objection, inter alia, stating;
:…
Applicant submitted the income tax return on form
no.16 for the year 2015-16 in which it is shown that
the Applicant has earned Rs.4,85,750/- from the crop
of wheat and Rs.8 lakhs from the crop of coriander and
after deducting the amount spent, the earning of the
Applicant was of Rs.7,30,960/- and accordingly the
return was submitted.
In the aforesaid case now, any police investigation
is not pending. After going through all the
documents, it appears that the credit balance of the
account of the Applicant which is on hold is from his
agricultural income and it has no concern with the
embezzled amount. Since, Applicant was absconding
therefore the police had kept the account on hold.
Now, the police have no objection on de-freezing the
aforesaid account of the Applicant.”
Despite these submissions, the Trial Court declined the relief
on the ground that the appellant is one of the accused among the
Directors of the Co-operative Society(s) involved in the instant
case. The High Court by its short order dismissed the Revision
Petition.
Having regard to the averments made and the stand taken before
the Trial Court, this Court is of the opinion that instead of
declining the relief entirely, the appellant should be allowed to
operate the account subject to furnishing adequate security either
in the form of adequate cash security or appropriate immovable
property to the satisfaction of the Trial Court in this regard.
Accordingly, the appellant’s application succeeds and the Trial
Court is directed to de-freeze the account of the appellant
subject to appropriate security to be furnished to the satisfaction
of the Trial Court within four weeks from today.
3
The appeal is allowed accordingly.
...........................J
(S. RAVINDRA BHAT)
...........................J
(DIPANKAR DATTA)
New Delhi,
January 9,2023
4
TEM NO.16 COURT NO.14 SECTION II-A
S U P R E M E C O U R T O F I N D I A
RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS
Petition(s) for Special Leave to Appeal (Crl.) No(s). 10005/2022
(Arising out of impugned final judgment and order dated 03-08-2022
in MCRC No. 20157/2022 passed by the High Court Of M.p Principal
Seat At Jabalpur)
TIKARAM CHANDRAWANSHI Petitioner(s)
VERSUS
THE STATE OF MADHYA PRADESH Respondent(s)
( IA No.159530/2022-EXEMPTION FROM FILING C/C OF THE IMPUGNED
JUDGMENT and IA No.159529/2022-EXEMPTION FROM FILING O.T. )
Date : 09-01-2023 This petition was called on for hearing today.
CORAM :
HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE S. RAVINDRA BHAT
HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE DIPANKAR DATTA
For Petitioner(s) Mr. N.k. Mody, Sr. Adv.
Mr. M. P. Parthiban, Adv.
Mr. A.S.Vaivawan, Adv.
Mr. R.Sudhakaran, Adv.
Mr. Vikash Rajkumari, Adv.
Mr. Subrahmanya Bhanu, Adv.
Mr. Praveen Swarup, AOR
Mr. Prabuddha Singh Gour, Adv.
Ms. Ishita M. Puranik, Adv.
Mr. Sukhamrit Singh, Adv.
Mr. Suresh Kumar Bhan, Adv.
Mrs. Suchitra Pandey, Adv.
Mr. Parmanand, Adv.
For Respondent(s)
UPON hearing the counsel the Court made the following
O R D E R
Leave granted.
The appeal is allowed in terms of the signed order. Pending applications, if any, shall stand disposed of.
(INDU MARWAH) (MATHEW ABRAHAM) COURT MASTER (SH) COURT MASTER (NSH) (signed order is placed on the file)