SANJAY T. Vs. CENTRAL BUREAU OF INVESTIGATION

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THIS petition is filed by the petitioner who claims that he is the son of accused No. 1 in the case registered by the Central Bureau of Investigation in Crime No. RC 1(A)/2012, pending on the file of the court of Principal Special Judge for CBI Cases and XXI Additional City Civil and Sessions Judge, Bangalore.

(2.) IT is stated that accused No. 1 is the father of the petitioner and that he has been accused of offences punishable under Section 13(2) read with Section 13(1)(e) of the Prevention of Corruption Act 1988, on the score that accused No. 1 being an employee of M/s. Bharat Sanchar Nigam Limited, had acquired wealth disproportionate to the known sources of his income and the mother of the petitioner had allowed accused No. 1 to acquire certain properties in her name, by investing illegal monies. It was further found during the course of investigation that there were accounts in M/s. State Bank of Hyderabad, Vijayanagar Branch and Karnataka Bank Limited, Vijayanagar Branch, Bangalore, held by the petitioner and therefore the prosecution suspected that the moneys in the said accounts of the present petitioner, were also held on behalf of accused No. 1 and since the present petitioner was aged about 25 and was said to be a student and was not gainfully employed. However, the petitioner contends that he is employed part -time with M/s. Telecom Department Employees' Cooperative Society, in one capacity or the other, and it is over a period of time that he has been earning money which is in deposit with the said banks and it is on mere suspicion that the accounts have been frozen. In this regard, the petitioner is said to have approached the court below, seeking the relief of de -freezing the accounts and permitting him to operate the same. The court below, however, by its order dated 25/6/2013, has rejected the prayer. In its reasoning the court below has opined that the petitioner was a student in college and was dependent on his parents and it is not stated that he had any avocation and had an independent source of income and therefore the moneys in the two separate bank accounts, could not be his own money.

(3.) THE learned Senior Advocate Sri. C.H. Jadhav, appearing as Standing Counsel for the Central Bureau of Investigation, would strongly oppose the petition and would submit that, as found by the court below, the petitioner had no known source of income or other avocation, except merely claiming that he was employed with a Cooperative Society without indicating the capacity in which he was so employed and the remuneration that he had received. Hence the only conclusion that can be drawn is that he was also holding money for accused No. 1. Hence there is no case made out for considering the? petition.