Madras High Court
A.Rajarajacholan vs State By Inspector Of Police on 26 July, 2022
Crl.R.C.No.423 of 2022
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS
RESERVED ON : 21.06.2022
PRONOUNCED ON : 26.07.2022
CORAM
THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE RMT.TEEKAA RAMAN
Crl.R.C.No.423 of 2022
A.Rajarajacholan .. Petitioner/3rd party
Vs.
State by Inspector of Police,
Vigilance and Anti-Corruption,
Salem Detachment .. Respondent / Complainant
PRAYER : This Criminal Revision Case is filed under Section 397 read with
Section 401 of Cr.P.C., to set aside the order dated 07.03.2022 made in
Crl.M.P.No.4 of 200 in Crime No.17/AC/2021 on the file of the Special
Judge (Special Court for Trial of Cases under the Prevention of Corruption
Act), Salem, by allowing this Criminal Revision case.
For Petitioner : Mr.A.V.Arun
For Respondent : Mr.C.E.Pratap
Government Advocate (Crl.Side)
_____________
Page No.1/15
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
Crl.R.C.No.423 of 2022
ORDER
A third party, who claimed ownership over the case property filed petition before the Special Court for Prevention of Corruption Act Cases, Salem, in Crl.M.P.No.4 of 2022, having unsuccessful, has filed the revision petition.
2. The petitioner, who is the third party to the criminal case, claims the ownership of the case property remanded in C.P.No.14 of 2021 before the Special Court for Prevention of Corruption Act Cases, Salem and filed the above petition. The same was rejected and hence, the revision.
3. Gist of the case leading to the filing of the above petition for return of the property under Section 451 of Cr.P.C., is as follows:
(i) A case in Salem V&AC Cr.No.17/AC/2021 was registered against the A1-R.Elangovan, President of Salem District Central Coop. Bank, Salem and Chairman of Tamil Nadu State Apex Coop. Bank, Chennai and _____________ Page No.2/15 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis Crl.R.C.No.423 of 2022 his son A2-E.Praveenkumar for the offences punishable under Sections 13(2) r/w 13(1)(e) of the PC Act, 1988 and 13(2) r/w 13(b) of the PC Act 1988 as amended in 2018, 109 r/w 13(2) r/w 13(1)(2) of the PC Act 1988 and 12 r/w 13(2) r/w 13(b) of the PC Act 1988 as amended in 2018.
(ii) Reliable information was received that A1-R.Elangovan had purchased several properties in the name of the petitioner herein viz., Rajarajacholan and some of the properties were donated by the petitioner-
Rajarajacholan to the Trust named as Swamy Iyyappan Educational Trust, Musiri, in which A1 and A2 are the Trustees. Under these circumstances, the house of the petitioner herein-Rajarajacholan was subjected to search.
(iii) The learned Special Judge, Special Court for Trial of Cases under the Prevention of Corruption Act, Salem, was intimated in advance about the proposed searches and in the advance intimation dated 21.10.2021, the place of search with respect to the petitioner was specifically mentioned. Authorisation was issued to conduct searches at the houses and other places _____________ Page No.3/15 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis Crl.R.C.No.423 of 2022 in Salem, Trichy, Namakkal, Karur, Coimbatore and Chennai of the persons who are closely related and associated to A1 and A2, by different officers in 37 places which includes the house of the petitioner.
(iv) After producing the authorization to the petitioner herein- Rajarajacholan, the said house was searched by Inspector of Police, Vigilance and Anti-Corruption, Vellore on 22.10.2021 between 06.40 hrs and 22.00 hrs in the presence of official witnesses and a seizure mahazar was prepared in this regard.
(v) During the above said search as per para-18 & 19 of the seizure mahazar, the cash of Rs.17,51,000/- and 3 locker keys and 12 documents were found and seized by the said Inspector from the house of the petitioner. The petitioner was interrogated by the said Inspector of Police and he confessed that he is having good rapport with the FIR noted accused A1- Elangovan and A2-Praveen Kumar from the year 2013 and further, he confessed that he has donated about 50 acres of land in the year 2017 at _____________ Page No.4/15 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis Crl.R.C.No.423 of 2022 Trichy to the said A1-Elangovan, who is running an Educational institution under the name and style of “Swamy Iyyappan Educational Trust” at Musiri and he has not obtained any pecuniary gain from the said Elangovan.
(vi) Apart from the cash seized from the house of the petitioner, gold jewels weighing about 596.200 grams and silver articles weighing about 2200.300 grams were also found and inventories were taken and handed over to the petitioner. Further, inventories were taken regarding the purchase of vehicles and bank transactions and other cash deposits of the petitioner and the seizure mahazar was produced before the Court along with 3 locker keys and cash of Rs.17,51,000/-. Based on the requisition given by Investigation officer, the cash of Rs.17,51,000/- along with cash seized during other searches in this case, totaling Rs.34,28,000/- was deposited in Indian Overseas Bank, District Court campus building, Salem as Fixed Deposit vide FDR No.178004000008179 dated 08.12.2021.
(vii) Search warrants were obtained from the learned Special Judge, _____________ Page No.5/15 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis Crl.R.C.No.423 of 2022 Special Court for Trial of Cases under the Prevention of Corruption Act, Salem along with 6 locker keys to conduct search of 6 bank Lockers on 26.11.2021 which included 2 bank lockers in the name of the petitioner- Rajarajacholan S/o. Azhagappan and one bank locker jointly held by the petitioner-Rajarajacholan and his wife.
(viii) The officers had conducted the search in his lockers on 29.11.2021 and had prepared mahazars of the things found inside the lockers. In bank locker No.6 of Indian Bank, Ayothiyapattinam branch, cash of Rs.1,00,000/- was found. In bank locker No.2127 of Central Co-operative bank, Salem, 43 documents were found. In bank locker No.47 of Ammapettai Urban Bank, 15 documents were found. The cash and documents found inside the lockers were returned to the petitioner and it were kept inside the concerned lockers itself. The said locker keys were submitted to the learned Special Judge, Special Court for Trial of Cases under the Prevention of Corruption Act, Salem.
_____________ Page No.6/15 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis Crl.R.C.No.423 of 2022
(ix) In respect of the cash Rs.17,51,000/- and three locker keys, which were deposited as case property before the trial Court, the petitioner seeks custody of the same on the ground that he has no connection with the crime nor with the accused and hence, seeks return of the property under Section 451 of Cr.P.C.
4. The main contention of the learned counsel for the petitioner is that the petitioner is an Architect and is a regular income tax assessee, paying tax for his earnings every year and also carrying on partnership business in the name and style of 'Madras Estate' and having move than 20 years of experience in the real estate business and the properties are his earned properties and has no nexus with the accused.
5. Learned counsel further submitted that the petitioner was carrying on business in real estate transactions and as such, he is a man of wealth and possession of Rs.17 lakhs cannot be doubted as suspicious. The petitioner has produced the documents under Ex.P1 to Ex.P21 relating to atleast 21 _____________ Page No.7/15 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis Crl.R.C.No.423 of 2022 transactions in which he had contributed a sum of Rs.11,24,597/-, as such the money which was found at the residence of the petitioner belongs to him and the same should have been handed over to him.
6. The learned counsel for the petitioner draw my attention to Ex.P24 and Ex.P27 filed before the trial Court that the income of the petitioner herein both from the real estate transaction and agricultural operation were duly reflected in those documents and the amount seized by the police party are kept for redeeming the jewel loan obtained from the Indian Bank, Ayothiyapattinam Branch and also Ex.P29 produced by the petitioner i.e., four jewel loan cards, are intended to be redeemed with the cash.
7. The learned Government Advocate (Crl. Side) based upon the counter, made his submissions in support of the order passed by the trial Court.
8. The sum and substance of the case of the petitioner is that out of _____________ Page No.8/15 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis Crl.R.C.No.423 of 2022 the 43 documents, found in the Salem Central Co-operative Bank Locker, 30 documents are relating to the transaction prior to the check period and hence, the same ought to have been released by the trial Court. Further, Ex.P24, Ex.P27 and Ex.P29, are pressed into service for the return of the said amount and the documents. It is specifically contended in the memorandum of grounds that some of the property gifted by the petitioner to Swamy Iyyappan Educational Trust, has been duly reflected in the Income Tax returns of the year 2018-19.
9. On perusal of the records and after hearing the rival submissions made by both parties, I find that the A1 in the above crime number is one Elangovan, President of the Salem District Central Co-operative Bank and also Chairman of the Tamil Nadu State Apex Co-operative Bank, Chennai and his son is arrayed as A2-E.Praveen Kumar for the alleged offence as stated supra. It is also to be noted that the A2 son of A1, is Vice Chairman of the Swamy Iyyappan Educational Trust.
_____________ Page No.9/15 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis Crl.R.C.No.423 of 2022
10. As per the respondent-Investigation Officer, during the search conducted in the house of the petitioner, cash of Rs.17,51,000/- and three locker keys and 12 documents were found and seized by the police. At the time of seizure, statement was recorded from the petitioner, wherein he confessed that he has donated 50 acres of land in the year 2017 at Trichy to the said Elangovan-A1, who is running an educational institution under the name and style of 'Swamy Iyyappan Educational Trust', Musiri, Trichy District.
11. Further investigation revealed that Rajarajacholan, the petitioner herein had purchased land to an extent of 20.95 acres under document No.2548/2017 dated 05.10.2017 and another document bearing No.2580 of 2017 dated 09.10.2017 for a sale consideration of Rs.19 lakhs and subsequently, donated the said land by way of gift deed on 26.12.2017 to the Swamy Iyyappan Educational Trust vide gift deed Doc.No.3464/2017 dated 26.12.2017 on the file of Sub Registrar, Musiri. _____________ Page No.10/15 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis Crl.R.C.No.423 of 2022
12. So also the petitioner had purchased lands to an extent of 25.14 acres vide Musiri SRO Doc.Nos.2659/2017 dated 16.10.2017, 2660/2017 dated 16.10.2017 and 2989/2017 dated 15.11.2017 for a total sale consideration of Rs.20,00,000/- and had donated those lands to “Swamy Iyyappan Educational Trust”, vide gift deed Doc.No.3496/2017 dated 28.12.2017 of SRO, Musiri.
13. Regarding the alleged agricultural income from his 4 acres of land, no documents have been produced and hence the trial Court has arrived at a conclusion that the investigation of the case has proved that there is nexus between this petitioner and the accused of this case as the petitioner had given 'Dhaana settlement' (Gift Deeds) of lands purchased for about Rs.30 lakhs even though he has no role to play in the trust named “Swamy Iyyappan Educational Trust”. Thereby, it has become mandatory to investigate the genuineness of the income shown in the income tax returns and the investigation is in the preliminary stage.
14. In the decision reported in 2018(2) SCC 372 [Citizens for _____________ Page No.11/15 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis Crl.R.C.No.423 of 2022 Justice and Peace Vs. State of Gujarat and Other], the Hon'ble Supreme Court has held as under:
The sweep and applicability of Section 102 Cr.P.C., is no more res integra. That question has been directly considered and answered in State of Maharashtra Vs. Tapas D. Neogy [(1999) 7 SCC 685], wherein the Court took the view that the bank account of the accused or any of his relations is “property” within the meaning of Section 102 Cr.P.C. and a police officer in course of investigation can seize or prohibit the operation of the said account if such assets have direct links with the commission of the offence for which the police officer is investigating into. Therefore, the challenge to the action of seizure of bank account of any person which may be found under circumstances creating suspicion of the commission of any offence, cannot be countenanced. The bank account need not be only of the accused, but it can be any account creating suspicion about the commission of an offence. (Paras 17 and 18) As the Investigating Officer was in possession of materials pointing out circumstances which create suspicion of the commission of an offence, in particular, the one under investigation and he having exercised powers under Section 102 of the Code, which he could, in law, therefore, could legitimately seize the bank accounts of the appellants after following the procedure prescribed in sub-Section (2) and sub-Section (3) of the same provision. The Investigating Officer after issuing instructions to seize the stated bank accounts of the appellants submitted report to the Magistrate concerned and thus complied with the requirement of sub-
_____________
Page No.12/15
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
Crl.R.C.No.423 of 2022
Section (3). (Para 25)
15. Therefore, whether the fact that the cash of Rs.17,51,000/- three bank locker keys, 12 documents that are seized from the house of the petitioner belonged to him and whether the petitioner is able to account for the said cash and whether the properties of the accused in this case were held by the petitioner, all could be revealed only after completion of the investigation. Hence, when the nature of generation of funds to the extent of Rs.17,51,000/- is under the investigation scanner, the source of income for the purchase of the land and the cause behind the donating the land to the Swamy Iyyappan Educational Trust, has to be proceeded in accordance with law and as per the investigation officer report, the initial investigation so far conducted indicates that the petitioner is only a name lender to the property and therefore, I am of the considered view that the order passed by the trial Court does not require any interference, since the investigation is at a preliminary stage. Thus, I find that the petition is pre-mature. After filing of the final report, it is open to the petitioner to move appropriate application, if _____________ Page No.13/15 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis Crl.R.C.No.423 of 2022 he so be advised.
16. With these observations, the Criminal Revision Case stands dismissed.
26.07.2022 Internet : Yes Index : Yes/No ars To
1. The Inspector of Police, Vigilance and Anti-Corruption, Salem Detachment
2. The Public Prosecutor, High Court, Madras.
_____________ Page No.14/15 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis Crl.R.C.No.423 of 2022 RMT.TEEKAA RAMAN,J., ars Pre-delivery order in Crl.R.C.No.423 of 2022 26.07.2022 _____________ Page No.15/15 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis