Supreme Court - Daily Orders
M/S Santosh Construction vs Union Of India on 3 January, 2023
Bench: M.R. Shah, C.T. Ravikumar
ITEM NO.26 COURT NO.5 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). 9998/2022
(Arising out of impugned final judgment and order dated 02-08-2022
in WPCR No. 205/2021 passed by the High Court Of Jharkhand At
Ranchi)
M/S SANTOSH CONSTRUCTION Petitioner(s)
VERSUS
UNION OF INDIA & ORS. Respondent(s)
( IA No. 159421/2022 - EXEMPTION FROM FILING O.T. and IA No.
188762/2022 - PERMISSION TO FILE ADDITIONAL
DOCUMENTS/FACTS/ANNEXURES)
Date : 03-01-2023 This matter was called on for hearing today.
CORAM : HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE M.R. SHAH
HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE C.T. RAVIKUMAR
For Petitioner(s) Mr. Siddharth Luthra, Sr. Adv.
Mr. Shashank Mishra, Adv.
Mr. Kaustabh Seth, Adv.
Mr. Ayush Kaushik, Adv.
Mr. Shashank Prasad, Adv.
Ms. Anusuya Sadhu Sinha, Adv.
Mr. Javedur Rahman, AOR
Mr. Mudassir, Adv.
Ms. Tullika Bhatnagar, Adv.
For Respondent(s) Ms. Aishwarya Bhati, ASG
Ms. Chitrangda Rastravara, Adv.
Mr. Gautam Bhardwaj, Adv.
Mr. Prashant Singh – II, Adv.
Ms. Zeenat Malick, Adv.
Mr. Arvind Kumar Sharma, AOR
Ms. Ekta Choudhary, AOR
Mr. Divyank Dutt Dwivedi, Adv.
UPON hearing the counsel the Court made the following
O R D E R
Signature Not Verified Digitally signed by Sanjay Kumar Date: 2023.01.04 Feeling aggrieved and dissatisfied with the judgment and order 16:54:52 IST Reason: dated 02.08.2022 passed by the High Court of Jharkhand at Ranchi in 1 Writ Petition (Crl) No. 205 of 2021, by which the High Court has dismissed the said writ petition and refused to de-freeze the bank accounts in question of the petitioner, the original writ petitioner-M/s Santosh Construction, whose bank accounts have been freezed, has preferred the present special leave petition.
It is the case on behalf of the Investigating Agency that at this stage, the bank accounts in question of the petitioner have been freezed in exercise of power under Section 102, CrPC. It is submitted that after thorough investigation and if the case is made out as per Section 25 of the Unlawful Activities (Prevention) Act, 1967 (for short ‘the 1967 Act’), further steps shall be taken in accordance with Section 25 of the 1967 Act.
Ms. Aishwarya Bhati, learned ASG, on instructions, has stated at the Bar that the investigation with respect to the transactions in question/bank accounts in question shall be completed/concluded within a period of two months from today and thereafter on the basis of the outcome of the said investigation, further steps shall be taken, if any, in accordance with Section 25 of the 1967 Act.
In view of the above, we dispose of the present special leave petition by observing that let the Investigating Agency under the 1967 Act complete the investigation with respect to the bank accounts in question/transactions in question within a period of two months from today and thereafter may take appropriate steps/actions as per Section 25 of the 1967 Act, if any case is made out and the conditions mentioned under Section 25 of the 1967 Act are satisfied, however, subject to the outcome of the investigation as above. It goes without saying that if any further 2 steps/actions are taken by the Investigating Agency under Section 25 of the 1967 Act, it will always be open for the petitioner to take further steps/avail the remedy which may be available under Section 25 of the 1967 Act.
Pending applications also stand disposed of.
(MEENAKSHI KOHLI) (NISHA TRIPATHI)
ASTT. REGISTRAR-cum-PS ASSISTANT REGISTRAR
3