GIMPEX LIMITED Vs. STATE OF KARNATAKA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) 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 powers under section 102 Cr.P.C., have frozen bank account of petitioner, the details of which are as follows:-

(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 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.