RAJIVA SHARMA Vs. STATE OF U P

JUDGEMENT

(1.) B. P. Singh, J. This is an application for revision against the order dated 17-1-1992 passed by Special Judge (Anti- Corruption) Dehradun in Criminal Case No. 1 of 1990-State v. Mahesh Chandra.

(2.) SRI Mahesh Chandra, father of applicant-Rajiva Sharma, was posted as Superintending Engineer, Department of Irrigation, Government of Uttar Pradesh at Roorkee and Banbassa, district Nainital, during the| period 17-4-80 to 6-4-87. Some compliants were made against him and were investi gated by the CBI/spe, A. C. U. IV, New Delhi. During the course of investiga tion Indra Vikas Patras worth rupees 2 lakhs were recovered from Locker No. 157 at the Bank of India, Nav Yug Market, Ghaziabad. Although these Indra Vikas Paras did not indicate as to who had applied for obtaining them, the investigating agencies came to the conclusion that Rajiva Sharma, in whose name the locker was allotted, had no independent source of income during the relevant period and as such these Indra Vikas Patras were the pro perty of Rajiva Sharma's father Mahesh Chandra. Consequently, Mahesh Chandra was charge-sheeted for having committed offence under Section 5 (l) (a) punishable under Section 5 (2) of the Prevention of Corruption Act. _ 3. While the case was pending before the Special Judge (Anti-Cor ruption), Dehradun, Rajiva Sharma moved an application for revoking the seizure order rf the bank locker and for return of the Indra Vikas Patras to him It was alleged by Rajiva Sharma that during the course of investigation, which was going against his father, shares and debentures belonging to him and purchased by him in the name of his sister or brother-in-law and Indra Vikas Patras from his Locker No. 157 of Bank of India, Nav Yug Market, Ghaziabad were seized. These valuables were his property and his father had no concern, whatsoever, with the same. He also contended that the key of the Locker No. 157 was with his father and the same was taken away by CBI authorities from his father. Indra Vikas Patras are maturing and he will lose interest if the Vikas Patra were not returned to him. 4. The learned Sessions Judge, after hearing both the parties recalled the seizure order of the empty locker No. 157. The personal account of Rajiva Sharma was also released. However, the prayer for release of Indra Vikas Patras was rejected by the Special Judge as the contention of the prosecuting agency was that these Indra Vikas Patras were the case property. 5. Aggrieved by this order Rajiva Sharma has come in revision. 6. I have heard learned counsel for the parties. It is not disputed that the locker No. 157 in question was in the name of Rajiva Sharma who is a major boy. It is also not disputed that the kay of the locker was found in possession of SRI Mahesh Chandra. It is also not disputed that the prosecuting agency has not been able to collect the evidence from which it could be ascertained as to in whose name these Indra Vikas Partras were purchased. The contention of the applicant, Rajiva Sharma, is that he had purchased the Indra Vikas Patras from his own income and his father had absolutely no concern with the same. He has also contended that the locker in question was in his name and he was the owner of every thing which was kept by him in that locker. On the other hand learned counsel for the CBI, SRI M. P. Tandon, contended that these Indra Vikas Partas were purchased by SRI Mahesh Chandra in the name of his son Rajiva Sharma, as Rajiva Sharma had no ostensible means of income. It was also contended by him that Mahesh Chandra had shown, while submitting a medical bill for his son Rajiva Sharma to the Irrigation Department, that Rajiva Sharma was dependent upon him. 7. All these questions are questions of fact and it is not possible to give any finding as to which of these versions is correct. On the face of it Rajiva Sharma would be deemed to be the owner of those Indra Vikas Patras because they were recovered from locker No. 157 which stood in his name. On the other hand CBI also has a case that in case it succeeds in proving by the evidence at the trial that the money for the purchase of these Indra Vikas Patras was provided by Mahesh Chandra, these Indra Vikas Patras would become the case property and could be seized. Learned counsel for the CBI conceded that in case the CBI fails to prove its case then these Indra Vikas Patras will have to be returned to Rajiva Sharma and by that time Rajiva Sharma would have suffered considerable loss of interest. It is also correct that these Patras cannot be renewed. They can only be encashed. 8. Under these circumstances I am of the view that the interests of both parties have to be safeguarded. The trial court shall get these Indra Vikas Patras encashed and out of the proceeds a sum of Rupees 2 lakhs will be kept in fixed deposit for a period of two years in the name of Rajiva Sharma and this F. D. R. will be kept in the court custody till the trial is over or the period of F. D. R. expires, whichever is earlier. The balance of the amount shall be paid to Rajiva Sharma after obtaining security from him for the same. In case the trial is not over within two years the trial court will again deposit the sum of rupees 2 lakhs in fixed deposit for such term as it may deem necessary but the interest which would have accrued during the period of two years would again be paid to Rajiva Sharma provided he furnishes adequate security to the satis faction of trial court. The amount of F. D. R. and the entire interest which would be paid to Rajiva Sharma shall finally be dealt with in accordance with the final decision in criminal case No. 1 of 1990 of the court of Special Judge, Dehradun. (State v. Mahesh Chandra ). The application for revision is disposed of accordingly. Revision disposed of. .