COMM. AJAY SOOD Vs. STATE

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THIS revision is directed against an order dated 27.8.2004 where the trial court declined the request to release amounts seized in exercise of power under Section 102 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, from the accused. Briefly, the facts of the case are that the accused allegedly committed offences under Sections 409/120 -B/34 IPC in as much as they allegedly induced numerous persons to invest substantial amounts with them or their sister concerns. It is claimed that the amounts were subsequently mis -appropriated and not put to use as was initially promised.

(2.) DURING the course of investigation, the police seized some amounts, from the premises and the accounts of the accused. In the course of the proceedings, the petitioners claiming to be investors/creditors of the said companies staking enforceable claims against the accused, approached the court for adjustment towards their claim. The court declined the application.

(3.) LEARNED counsel took me through the copies of the agreements as well as the documents, issued by the accused, members of the Kuber Group of Companies to say that the petitioners were not investors but had a separate right in as much as they were entitled to properties. The petitioners had paid valuable consideration and even purchased stamp papers, for execution of the sale deeds.