K PALANISWAMY Vs. STATE

JUDGEMENT

(1.) ONE K. Palanisamy calling himself an authorised officer of an entity going by the name Vazhga Vaiagam Enterprises, Salem, filed these two petitions under sections 451 and 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure (for short, "Crl. P. C.") impleading the State represented by the Inspector of Police, Hasthampatty Police Station (Law and Order), Salem, and the Assistant Director of Income-tax (Investigation), Salem-7, as respondents Nos. 1 and 2, besides certain specified and named individuals numbering 12 as respondents Nos. 3 to 14, praying for the reliefs of (1) directing the first respondent to return the amount of Rs. 1, 60, 61, 523 seized from the premises of the aforesaid firm in Crime No. 479 of 1991 and(2) directing the second respondent to allow the respondents Nos. 3 to 14 to operate their respective bank accounts.The fundamental facts giving rise to the filing of these two petitions as culled out from the materials collected during the course of investigation in the aforesaid crime number of Hasthampatty Police Station, Salem, getting revealed by the representations made by the learned Public Prosecutor and Special Public Prosecutor for income-tax cases may succinctly be stated to better appreciate the grant or otherwise of the reliefs prayed for in both these petitions.(a) On August 17, 1991, at 1 p.m., one P. Dhanasekaran of Kullampatty, Salem District, lodged information before the first respondent-Inspector of Police, Hasthampatty Police Station, Salem, as to the firm going by the name Vazhga Vaiagam Enterprises situate at No. 3-A, Paramaroor East, Salem-7, indulging in promoting money circulation schemes with an oblique motive of ultimately cheating the gullible public at large, thereby committing offences with impunity under the salient provisions adumbrated in the Prize Chits and Money Circulation Schemes (Banning) Act, 1978 (for short, "the 1978 Act"), Indian Penal Code (for short, "the Code") and under the Income-tax Act, 1961 (for short, "the 1961 Act"). In that process, it is said it initiated a survey on August 19, 1991(d) Besides, the first respondent, it is said, made a search of the premises of the firm, Vazhga Vaiagam Enterprises.

(2.) THE search operation, it is said, commenced at 2.30 p.m. on August 19, 1991, and was completed at 3 a.m. on August 20, 1991. During the said operation, the first respondent was stated to have seized Rs. 1, 18, 21, 935 after duly observing all formalities. THE seized amounts, it is said, had been produced before the court of the Chief judicial Magistrate, Salem, on the same day which in turn was ordered to be deposited in the Criminal Court Deposit account in the State Bank of India.

(3.) THE petitioner and respondents Nos. 3 to 14 are all Central Government employees working in the Telecommunication Department(1) THE second respondent, it is said, recorded statements from respondents Nos. 3 to 14, who it is said, had stated that the money in their respective individual bank accounts do not belong to them, but that they belonged to the firm Vazhga Vaiagam Enterprises. Excepting their statements so recorded, there are no tangible materials, in the shape of documents, to vouchsafe what they had stated at this stage. Further probe, it is said, is being made into that aspect of the matter by the Crime Branch CID to whom the case is subsequently transferred.THE petitioner filed Criminal Original Petition No. 7988 of 1991 under section 482, Criminal Procedure Code, for quashing the proceedings initiated against the firm Vazhga Vaiagam Enterprises in Crime No. 479 of 1991, Hasthampatti Police Station, on the ground that the averments in the first information report do not at all disclose any offence either under the Code or under the 1978 Act and a learned judge of this court dismissed the same, holding that there are prima facie materials for the alleged commission of the offences under section 4 of the 1978 Act and under section 420 of the Code which are cognisable in nature. It is represented at the Bar that the petitioner had taken steps to file a special leave petition before the apex court.THE petitioner did not at all file any petition under section 451, Criminal Procedure Code, before the Court of the Chief judicial Magistrate, Salem, praying for the return of the cash seized pending trial and the instant petitions had been filed straightaway before this court for the reliefs as aforesaid.Learned senior counsel, Mr. S. Chellaswamy, appearing for the petitioner, would submit that the interest of justice requires that the seized money should be returned to the petitioner so as to enable him to honour the commitment of the firm to the subscribers, in the sense of paying them on the respective due dates of maturity of the deposits and if there is any reasonable apprehension in the mind of the court that it is likely that the petitioner will skulk away with the money, he has no objection to the appointment of an Advocate-Commissioner to take charge of the amount to be returned to the firm and he can make the payment to the depositors on the due dates of maturity. He would further submit that the prohibitory orders issued by the second respondent for freezing the bank accounts in the individual names of respondents-Nos. 3 to 14 may be lifted and those amounts may also be utilised by the Advocate Commissioner to be appointed for making the payments to the depositors under the various schemes announced by the firm, to which course respondents Nos. 3 to 14 have no objectionTHE learned Public Prosecutor, Mr. B. Sreeramulu, and the learned Special Public Prosecutor for Income-tax cases, Mr. K. Ramasamy, would, however, repel, tooth and nail, such submissions.Even at the outset, I may point out that both the petitions are liable to be dismissed in limine. THE reason is rather obvious. Both the petitions are captioned as being filed under sections 451 and 482, Criminal Procedure Code, and invoking of power, both under section 451 and as well as under section 482, Criminal Procedure Code, simultaneously by this court is not at all legally permissible.