Karnataka High Court
M/S. Gimpex Limited vs State Of Karnataka on 19 January, 2015
Author: N.Ananda
Bench: N.Ananda
1
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU
DATED THIS THE 19TH DAY OF JANUARY 2015
BEFORE
THE HON'BLE MR.JUSTICE N.ANANDA
WRIT PETITION No.57274/2014
BETWEEN:
M/s.GIMPEX LIMITED
HAVING ITS OFFICE AT NO.282, (OLD NO.181)
LINCH CHETTY STREET, CHENNAI - 600 001.
REP. BY ITS AUTHORIZED SIGNATORY
MR. R.VENKATA KRISHNAN. ... PETITIONER
(BY SRI M.DHYAN CHINNAPPA, SR.ADVOCATE FOR SRI K.ARUN
KUMAR, ADVOCATE FOR M/S.CREST LAW PARTNERS,
ADVOCATES)
AND:
1. STATE OF KARNATAKA
BY POLICE INSPECTOR
SPECIAL INVESTIGATION TEAM
KARNATAKA LOKAYUKTA
ATIC BUILDING, HEBBAL, BANGALORE
REP. BY STATE PUBLIC PROSECUTOR.
2. INVESTIGATING OFFICER
SPECIAL INVESTIGATION TEAM
KARNATAKA LOKAYUKTA
ATIC BUILDING, UNIVERSITY OF VETERINARY SCIENCE
CAMPUS, HEBBAL, BANGALORE-591 221.
3. M/s.ING VYSYA BANK LIMITED
MOUNT ROAD BRANCH, 185, ANNA SALAI, NEAR TVS
CHENNAI - 600 006
REP. BY ITS GENERAL MANAGER.
2
4. M/s.BANK OF BARODA LIMITED
J C HOUSE, NEW NO.70 (OLD NO.28)
RAJAJI SALAI, CHENNAI - 600 001
REP. BY ITS GENERAL MANAGER.
5. M/s.PUNJAB NATIONAL BANK
RAYALA TOWERS, III FLOOR, 781-785
ANNA SALAI, CHENNAI - 600 002
REP. BY ITS GENERAL MANAGER. ... RESPONDENTS
(BY SRI GOPALKRISHNA R HEGDE, ADV. FOR R4; SRI
VENKATESH P.DALWAI, ADVOCATE FOR R1; R2, R3 & R5-
SERVED)
THIS PETITION IS FILED UNDER ARTICLES 226 & 227 OF
THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA R/W SECTION 482 CR.P.C.,
PRAYING TO SET ASIDE THE ORDER DATED 12.11.2014,
DIRECTING FREEZING OF THE BANK ACCOUNTS OF
PETITIONER VIDE ANNEXURES-A TO D & ETC.
THIS PETITION COMING ON FOR PRELIMINARY HEARING
IN 'B' GROUP THIS DAY, THE COURT MADE THE FOLLOWING:
ORDER
The respondents 1 & 2 during investigation of Crime No.5/2014, registered against petitioner for offences punishable under sections 379 & 420 r/w 120B IPC, sections 13(1)(d) r/w 13(2) of the Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988 and also for offences punishable under sections 21 & 23 r/w 4(1), 4(1)(A) of MMDR Act, 1957, by exercising 3 powers under section 102 Cr.P.C., have frozen bank account of petitioner, the details of which are as follows:-
1. Bank of Baroda - 05290200001744 -
Cr.Rs.19,92,660.06
2. ING Vysya Bank, Chennai - 407011004918 - Cr.Rs.1,17,750.55.
3. ING Vysya Bank, Bellary - 111011007814 - Cr.Rs.1,18,261.69
4. Punjab National Bank - 0305008700095869 - (Dr.Rs.8,91,90,442.91)
2. Out of the aforestated accounts, account mentioned at Sl.No.4 is the overdraft facility extended to petitioner. Therefore, without verification, the Investigating Officer should not have instructed the Bank Manager to freeze over draft account facility extended by the Bank to petitioner.
3. As could be seen from the statement of accounts furnished by both the parties, the aggregate amount standing to the credit of petitioner in the aforestated banks 4 is a sum of Rs.22,28,672/-. In other words, the freezing of bank accounts as aforestated on the request of Investigating Officer is continued till conclusion of trial, ultimately if petitioner is convicted, a sum of Rs.22,28,672/- would be available to court to appropriate the same towards fine that may be imposed on petitioner-accused.
4. The respondents 1 & 2 are yet to file the final report. At this stage, it is not clear as to the other accused involved in commission of aforestated offences.
5. The learned senior counsel for petitioner would submit that petitioner would offer bank guarantee for a sum of Rs.50,00,000/- as a condition precedent for defreezing the aforestated bank accounts.
6. The learned counsel for Police (SIT) submits that this court having regard to the facts and circumstances of the case, magnitude of offences alleged against petitioner and bearing in mind the loss caused to state exchequer, may pass appropriate orders.
5
7. In the discussion made supra, I have given details of bank accounts and the amount standing in the account of petitioner and total amount frozen in aforestated accounts. I have also narrated consequences that may ultimately follow even if petitioner is convicted. The investigation is not yet complete. It is also not certain when the investigation will be complete and trial will conclude. In the circumstances, there is no justification to freeze the bank account of petitioner, in anticipation of conviction and fine that may be imposed on petitioner on such conviction.
8. Therefore, I deem it proper to direct the petitioner to furnish bank guarantee for a sum of Rs.50,00,000/- to the court below for a period of one year. Upon the petitioner furnishing bank guarantee to the court below as aforestated, the court below shall instruct the aforestated banks to defreeze the bank accounts of petitioner stated supra. The parties are at liberty to invoke section 452 Cr.P.C., after final report is filed for modification of this order, in accordance 6 with law. The petition is disposed of with these observations. Office to communicate this order to the learned XXIII Additional City Civil & Sessions Judge & Special Judge at Bangalore City.
Sd/-
JUDGE SNN