Madhya Pradesh High Court
Diocese Of Jabalpur vs The State Of Madhya Pradesh on 22 December, 2022
Author: Sanjay Dwivedi
Bench: Sanjay Dwivedi, Prakash Chandra Gupta
1
IN THE HIGH COURT OF MADHYA PRADESH
AT JABALPUR
BEFORE
HON'BLE SHRI JUSTICE SANJAY DWIVEDI
&
HON'BLE SHRI JUSTICE PRAKASH CHANDRA GUPTA
ON THE 22 nd OF DECEMBER, 2022
CRIMINAL REVISION No. 4775 of 2022
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 A. DILRAJ -
ADVOCATE)
AND
THE STATE OF MADHYA PRADESH THROUGH
ECONOMIC OFFENCE WING JABALPUR (MADHYA
PRADESH)
.....RESPONDENT
(BY SHRI PRASHANT SINGH - ADVOCATE GENERAL WITH SHRI MADHUR
SHUKLA - ADVOCATE)
This revision coming on for admission this day, JUSTICE SANJAY
DWIVEDI passed the following:
ORDER
By this criminal revision filed under Section 397 r/w 401 of CrPC, the applicant is challenging the order dated 06.12.2022 passed by the Court below in MJCR No.5125/2022 whereby an application submitted by the applicant under Section 451 r/w Section 457 of CrPC has been rejected.
Of a note, the said application was moved by the applicant for releasing Signature Not Verified Signed by: SUDESH KUMAR SHUKLA Signing time: 12/22/2022 7:05:19 PM 2 the bank account which has been attached and frozen by the Investigating Agency i.e. EOW.
The learned Senior counsel appearing for the applicant submits that the person against whom offence has been registered by the respondent is one of the signatories of bank-account of present applicant lying in the Indian Overseas Bank, Jabalpur. He further submits that an offence has been registered against Shri P.C. Singh and others under different provisions of the Indian Penal Code and Prevention of Corruption Act vide Crime No.80/2022 and in furtherance to the said criminal case, the account of the applicant has been frozen by the respondent only on the ground that P.C. Singh, who is one of the accused in Crime No.80/2022 is one of the signatories of that account. He further submits that in fact the account does not belong to P.C. Singh, instead it belongs to the applicant-trust, which is a registered Society and the amount lying in that account does not exclusively belong to P.C. Singh, however, only in the capacity of Bishop, he is one of the signatories. To reinforce, he relies upon a decision of the Supreme Court in re Sri Jayendra Saraswathy Swamigal (II), T.N. v. State of T.N. and others (2005) 8 SCC 771 wherein dealing with the similar situation, it has been observed that account cannot be seized by the Investigating Agency merely because one of the account-holders is found involved in any of the crime.
In contrast Shri Prashant Singh, learned Advocate General appearing for the respondent opposes the submissions made on behalf of the applicant and submits that the respondent has registered the economic offence against P.C. Singh alleging huge financial embezzlement of public money done by him. He further submits that the account which has been frozen by the respondent belongs to accused P.C. Singh and the amount lying therein is a public money Signature Not Verified Signed by: SUDESH KUMAR SHUKLA Signing time: 12/22/2022 7:05:19 PM 3 and accordingly action has been taken so as to evade any further misappropriation. He further submits that the case in which, counsel for the applicant has placed reliance, has no application in the case at hand inasmuch as in the said case one of the account-holders was found involved in a crime of murder and as such the Supreme Court came to observe that the account cannot be seized merely because accused is facing charge of murder. Shri Singh accentuates that the present case is altogether different as herein the charge of financial embezzlement that too of public money is framed and therefore the account can be seized and the Court below rightly rejected the application for release of account. To reinforce, he relies upon a decision of Division Bench of this Court rendered in Cr.R.No.1474/2021 (Sunita Shrivastava and another v. State of M.P.) wherein it has been categorically observed that if account is to be seized, then proper permission can be sought by the Investigating Agency as per the requirement of Criminal Law Amendment Ordinance, 1944 (for brevity "Ordinance, 1944"). He submits that in Ordinance 1944, there is specific procedure prescribed and power granted for attachment of property of a person involved in economic offence and also prescribes the procedure under which account can also be attached. He further submits that for that purpose, the application is required to be moved before the District Judge of the concerning district where account is lying and as such the respondent is willing to move appropriate application before the District Judge, Jabalpur so as to seek permission for attachment of account as per the requirement of Ordinance, 1944. He further submits that at best the applicant can appear before the District Judge and can raise objection and if permission is not granted then the authority will consider the request for release of account, Signature Not Verified Signed by: SUDESH KUMAR SHUKLA Signing time: 12/22/2022 7:05:19 PM 4 but at this stage, this Court cannot entertain the revision and allow the application moved by the applicant under Section 451 r/w 457 of CrPC.
In repartee, the learned Senior counsel appearing for the applicant submits that the authority proceeded under Section 102 of CrPC and therefore application under Section 451 r/w 457 of CrPC can be considered and allowed.
We have heard the submissions of the learned counsel for the rival parties and perused the documents available on record.
Before coming to any conclusion, it is indispensable to go-through the observations made by the Division Bench in case of Sunita Shrivastava (supra) and we feel it apposite to quote those observations hereinbelow:-
"10. Accordingly, all the six Criminal Revisions i.e. CRR No.1474/2021, CRR No.1117/2021, CRR No.1118/2021, CRR No.1206/2021, CRR No.1475/2021 and CRR No.1476/2021 are disposed of in the following terms:-
(i) The impugned orders dated 28.01.2021, so far it rejects the application u/Ss 451 and 457 of Cr.P.C. of the petitioners passed by Special Judge (P.C. Act), Umaria in M.J.C.R. No.43/2020......
(ii) The possession of the seized money/property/documents qua the petitioners in all six Criminal Revisions in respect of offences in question shall be transferred on paper from the possession of the police to the possession of the Special Judge (Lokayukt), Rewa without making the money/property/documents move physically.Signature Not Verified Signed by: SUDESH KUMAR SHUKLA Signing time: 12/22/2022 7:05:19 PM 5
(iii) The Investigating Agency and the Special Judge shall follow the procedure laid down in Clauses 3, 4 and 5 of the Ordinance of 1944 in regard to the seized property, money and documents including applications for release of the attached property if made by petitioners and thereafter, pass appropriate orders as expeditiously as possible within a period of 90 days from today.
(iv) It is made clear by this Court that in no circumstances, the physical possession of the seized property/ cash/documents shall be handed over to the petitioners. However, the same shall remain subject to the order that is passed by the Special Judge after following the procedure laid down under Ordinance of 1944."
A glimpse of the observations reveals that the Division Bench after taking note of the Ordinance, 1944 which specifically provides a procedure under which permission can be granted to attach the account, has sufficiently thrown light. Quite apart, the respondent since making statement before this Court at bar that they are going to move appropriate application before the District Judge, Jabalpur for seeking permission, there appears no reason for us to digress from the observations already set at rest.
In view of the above discourse, we do not find any reason to interfere in the impugned order.
Accordingly, the criminal revision is dismissed. However, the respondent
- Investigating Agency is directed to move an appropriate application before the District Judge, Jabalpur within a period of ten days from today and the Signature Not Verified Signed by: SUDESH KUMAR SHUKLA Signing time: 12/22/2022 7:05:19 PM 6 applicant shall be free to appear and raise objection before that Court, which shall be considered on its own merits.
It needs to be emphasized that if the respondent does not move application within the stipulated period, the applicant will have an occasion to re-knock the doors of this Court by filing revision petition afresh.
Criminal revision is dismissed with the aforesaid direction and liberty.
(SANJAY DWIVEDI) (PRAKASH CHANDRA GUPTA)
V. JUDGE V. JUDGE
Sudesh
Signature Not Verified
Signed by: SUDESH KUMAR
SHUKLA
Signing time: 12/22/2022
7:05:19 PM