MALLIKA Vs. STATE OF TAMIL NADU

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This appeal is preferred against the order of the learned Chief Judge, Court of Small Causes, dated 31.08.2007 in Crl. O.P. No. 2 of 2006, whereby the interim attachment already ordered was made absolute.

(2.) The brief facts, which are necessary to dispose the appeal, are as follows:

(3.) Learned Counsel for the Appellants contended that the Appellants were not the accused in the case filed against the 2nd Respondent in C.C. No. 3 of 2005 and hence, me properties cannot be attached in a separate proceeding. Moreover, the criminal case is still pending before the VI Additional Sessions Judge, Chennai. Unless the guilt is proved as against the 2nd Respondent, neither the properties of the 2nd Respondent nor the properties of the Appellants can be attached. Moreover, the properties by the Appellants were purchased in their own name out of their own earnings. The 1st Appellant is also an income tax Assessee. Under such circumstances, based on the criminal case filed against the 2nd Respondent, the properties of the Appellants cannot be attached. Moreover, the authority has no right under law to attach the properties of the Appellants when they are not the accused in the said criminal case. Further, no opportunity was given to the Appellants and without hearing the legitimate grievance of the Appellants, the competent authority had issued the G.O. Under such circumstances, the attachment order passed by the trial court was not legally sustainable and as such, the same has to be set aside. In support of the same, the learned Counsel for the Appellants has also relied on the judgments (D.S.P., Chennai v. K. Inbasagaran, 2006 2 LW(Cri) 523,, (State v. K. Ponmudi, 2007 1 MadLJ(Cri) 100) and (G. Malliga v. State, 2007 1 MadLJ(Cri) 86).