NABAPRAVAT TRUST ZERINA MARINES Vs. STATE OF ORISSA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) ALL the three revisions have been filed against the order dated 3.10.2001 passed by the learned Special C.J.M. (Vigilance), Bhubaneswar rejecting the prayer of the petitioners in all the three revisions for release of bank accounts seized by the Vigilance Department.

(2.) THE following are the facts giving rise to the above three revisions. First Information Report was lodged by the Vigilance Department against one Bichitrananda Muduli and the F.I.R. was registered as Bhubaneswar Vigilance P. S. Case No. 25/2000 for the offences alleged to have committed under Sections 13(2) and 13(1)(e) of the Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988. Allegation in the F.I.R. is that the public servant is in possession of properties disproportionate to his known sources of income. At the time of lodging F.I.R. the public servant was working as Chief Engineer in the Rural Works Department under the State Govt. Further case of the Vigilance department is that said Bichitrananda Muduli who has retired in the meantime had acquired properties disproportionate to his known sources of income to the tune of Rs. 77,50,614.75p. According to the Vigilance Department said accused Bichitrananda Muduli did not have sound financial background earlier and had incurred loan even after entering into service and could not repay the same till 1970. On his failure to repay the loan certificate case was initiated against him and he was also not in a position to construct a residential house for himself for which he had also obtained loan from the Capital Urban House Building Co operative Society Limited in the year 1986. The financial condition of the said public servant was also not very good even in the year 1995 when he applied for third instalment of the loan to the Secretary, Capital Urban House Building Co operative Society Limited, Bhubaneswar. Son of the public servant Sri Nalinikanta Muduli who is the Managing Director of two of the petitioners companies and a Trustee in the petitioner trust (in Crl. Revision No. 718/2001) also had no income and was not paying income tax till 1995. Suddenly after 1995 there has been acquisition properties to the extent stated above which have been found prima facie to be disproportionate to the known sources of income of said accused Bichitrananda Muduli. During investigation into the said case the Vigilance Department seized bank accounts of all the three petitioners in the aforesaid three revisions on the ground that huge amount of money misappropriated by said accused Bichitrananda Muduli have been invested in the two companies namely Zerina Marines Pvt. Ltd. (Crl. Rev. No. 719/2001) Zerina Constructions Pvt. Ltd. (Crl. Rev, No. 720/2001) as well as Nabapravat Trust (Crl. Rev. No. 718/2001) run by his son.

(3.) SHRI D.K. Mohapatra, learned counsel appearing for the Vigilance Department, on the other hand, submitted that the documents seized during investigation clearly indicate that till the year 1995 neither accused public servant nor his son who is the Managing Director of the companies namely Zerina Marines Pvt. Ltd. and Zerina Constructions Pvt. Ltd. had sufficient sources of income. Rather son of accused public servant had practically no income and was not filing tax return till year 1995. After 1995 suddenly income of the son of accused public servant has gone upto such extent that doubt arises in the mind of the Vigilance Department to the effect that accused public servant might have invested huge amount from out of ill got money in the aforesaid two companies as well as in the trust. He further submitted that some documents have been seized indicating that huge amount have been given on loan by the accused public servant to his son and bank accounts also indicate that huge amount of money have been deposited in cash. Referring to the decision of the Apex Court reported in AIR 1999 SCW 3389 (State of Maharashtra v. Tapas D. Neogy) Sri Mohapatra submitted that the Vigilance Department has the authority under Section 201 of the Criminal Procedure Code to cause seizure of the bank accounts of the son of the accused public servant or accounts of the companies run by his son if the same has any nexus with commission of offence committed by the public servant for which investigation is going on. According to him since investigation is still in progress it may not be possible to hold at this stage that there is no nexus between the commission of offence by the public servant and the amount deposited in the bank accounts seized by the Vigilance Department.