MEENA KARAIYA Vs. STATE OF MADHYA PRADESH

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This petition under Section 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure (for brevity " CrPC ") is directed against the order dated 10/12/2019 passed by Special Judge (Prevention of Corruption Act), Gwalior; whereby, the application filed by the petitioner under Sections 451 and 457 of CrPC has been rejected.

(2.) The facts as projected by the petitioner are that in a case registered against petitioner's husband in Crime No.0/2012 under Sections13(1)(e) & 13(2) of the Prevention of Corruption Act , movable and immovable properties have been seized including properties which are in possession of the petitioner have been obtained from her own income. The description of the seized properties has been given in separate three seizure memos which are annexed with the police report filed by the respondent before the concerned Court.

(3.) Learned counsel for the petitioner has submitted that in the instance case, the prosecution has failed to collect any evidence and no case is made out against any person. It is also submitted that all these properties have been seized after the search of the house of the petitioner's husband/accused. Learned counsel for the petitioner has further submitted that after seizure of the properties, the petitioner is unable to operate the locker and is not able to use the properties owned by her. The petitioner is indulged in her own business named M.M. Developers and Construction Pvt. Limited and she is the Director of the company. So far as ornaments are concerned, it is the stridhan property of the petitioner which has been obtained legally and so far as LIC policies as well as deposited money and movable properties are concerned, these are the properties obtained by the petitioner from her own income. The aforementioned properties have been seized with a view to ascertain the amount of money and the assessment of the income of the accused. Since after evaluating the properties, it has been found that whole of the properties don't depict the fact that accused person has the properties more than his income; therefore, the final report has been filed by the prosecution stating that there is no offence committed by the accused person or any other person.