Karnataka High Court
M/S Valmark Realty Holdings Pvt Ltd vs State Of Karnataka on 19 November, 2021
1
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU
DATED THIS THE 19TH DAY OF NOVEMBER 2021
BEFORE
THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE SREENIVAS HARISH KUMAR
CRIMINAL PETITION No.7250 OF 2021
BETWEEN
M/s. Valmark Realty Holdings Pvt. Ltd.,
Having office at No.133/1,
10th Floor, Bengaluru-560025.
Represented by its
Authorized Representative
Shri. Paras Tolia
...Petitioner
(By Sri Ashwin Vaish, Advocate for
Sri Gautham S. Bharadwaj, Advocate)
AND
1. State of Karnataka
Through Agency
Anti-Corruption Bureau
Bengaluru City.
2. Syed Aslam Parveez,
No.21 Cock Burn Road,
Shivajinagar, Bengaluru-560051.
(Respondent 2 is deleted vide
court order dated 28.10.2021)
...Respondent
(By Sri P.N.Manmohan, Spl.P.P., for R1(ACB))
2
This Criminal Petition is filed under Section 482
Cr.P.C. praying to quash the action of the police in seizing
the Bank Accounts of the petitioner under Section 102 of
Cr.P.C. vide notice/s dated 13.08.2020 and 14.08.2020
and consequently direct release of the Bank Accounts
bearing No.510101005674671, 510101005677199
Corporation Bank, M.G.Road, and 50200035792721 at
HDFC Bank, Kasturaba Road Branch, in case bearing Crime
No.13/2019 Police Station Anti-/Corruption Bureau,
Bengaluru City under Sections 408, 409, 420, 465, 468,
471, 120B of IPC and Section 13(1)(d)(ii) read with 13(2)
of P.C. Act, pending on the file of the court of XXIII
Additional City Civil and Sessions Judge, Special Judge,
Bengaluru.
This Criminal Petition coming on for admission this
day, the court made the following:
ORDER
The petitioner has invoked jurisdiction of this court under section 482 Cr.P.C for quashing the action of the police in seizing its bank accounts at the Corporation Bank, M.G.Road, and the HDFC Bank, Kasturba Road Branch, Bengaluru. The material facts necessary for disposal of this petition are as follows :
2. The respondent registered an FIR against the petitioner, which is a company and some other 3 accused in Crime No.13/2019 in relation to offences punishable under sections 408, 409, 420, 465, 468, 471, 120B of the Indian Penal Code and section 13(1)(d)(ii) read with section 13(2) of the Prevention of Corruption Act. During investigation, on 13/14.8.2020, the bank accounts of the petitioner and some other accused were attached and seized pursuant to notice issued by the police under section 102 of Cr.P.C. The petitioner and some other accused made an application in the trial court under sections 451 and 457 Cr.P.C for releasing the bank accounts, but their applications were dismissed on 16.9.2020.
Thereafter the said order was challenged before this court in Criminal Revision Petition No.646/2020 and connected matters by the petitioner and other accused. By order dated 20.11.2020, the revision petitions having stood dismissed, one of the accused by name Ratan Babulal Lath approached the Supreme 4 Court seeking special leave to prefer an appeal. The Supreme Court granted leave, and then in Criminal Appeal No. 949/2021, allowed the appeal, and ordered for defreezing the bank accounts of the appellant, and then set aside the order of this court in the revision petitions. Despite this order of the Supreme Court, the petitioner's bank accounts have not been defreezed. Hence this petition.
3. I have heard Sri Ashwin Vaish, learned counsel for the petitioner and Sri P.N.Manmohan for the respondent.
4. Sri Ashwin Vaish argues that the Supreme Court noticed that attachment of bank accounts under section 102 Cr.P.C was not permitted in view of section 18A of the Prevention of Corruption Act being the proper remedy, and in fact in the counter affidavit filed by the respondent before the Supreme Court, it 5 was stated that an application under section 18A of Prevention of Corruption Act could be filed. He also submitted the order of the Supreme Court discloses that entire order of this court in the revision petitions was set aside, and in that view, the said order benefits the petitioner although it did not challenge the order of this court in revision petitions before the Supreme Court. He submits that the order of this court in revision petitions merged with the order of the Supreme Court. He seeks support for his argument mainly from the judgment of the Supreme Court in the case of Kunhayammed and Others vs State of Kerala and Another [(2000) 6 SCC 359]. Therefore he contended that the petitioner's bank accounts should also be defreezed.
5. Sri P.N.Manmohan on the other hand submits that under the order of the Supreme Court, the petitioner cannot seek defreezing of his bank 6 accounts. The said order is applicable in so far as the accused who approached the Supreme Court and to other accused.
6. I have considered the points of arguments. It is true that the petitioner did not challenge the rejection of its revision petition by this court, but that itself cannot be a reason for declining to defreeze its bank accounts. If the order of the Supreme Court is read, it becomes amply clear that while defreezing the bank accounts of the accused who challenged the order of this court, also set aside the order in the revision petitions. It conveys a meaning that entire order was set aside, and thus it benefits the petitioner company also. As has been held in the case of Kunhayammed, the order of this court in the revision petitions merged with the order of the Supreme Court in Criminal Appeal No.949/2021. In this view, the petitioner is entitled to seek defreezing of his bank 7 accounts. Therefore this petition is allowed, the petitioner's bank accounts bearing No. 510101005674671 and 510101005677199 at the Corporation Bank, M.G.Road Branch, Bengaluru and account No. 50200035792721 at HDFC Bank, Kasturba Road Branch, Bengaluru, are ordered to be defreezed forthwith in connection with Crime No. 13/2019 registered by first respondent.
The first respondent shall communicate this order to the concerned banks.
Sd/-
JUDGE ckl