P. VENKATA RAMANA Vs. STATE OF TELANGANA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The present Criminal Revision Case is filed under Sections 397 and 401 Cr.P.C. aggrieved by the order, dated 08.03.2019, passed in Crl.M.P.No.898 of 2018 in Cr.No.7/RCO-ICU-ACB/2018, on the file of the Principal Special Judge for SPE and ACB Cases, City Civil Courts, Hyderabad, wherein the application filed by the revision petitioner/third party (hereinafter referred to as "the revision petitioner") to defreeze his bank accounts and to return the documents, was dismissed.

(2.) Brief facts of the case are that the revision petitioner filed Crl.M.P.No.898 of 2018 under Section 451 of Cr.P.C., seeking to defreeze the S.B Account bearing No.021510021001406 with Andhra Bank, Kamareddy Branch and S.B. Account bearing No.912010002418127 with Axis Bank, Kamareddy Branch and to return the original registered sale deed bearing No.1097/2016 of S.R.O., Bhongiri and xerox copy of the registered sale deed vide document No.8724 of 2016 of S.R.O., Kukatpally to him. The averments in the said petition disclose that the revision petitioner is the proprietor of M/s. Santosh Plastics, Kamareddy and is running the said business since 12 years and that he is having SB Account bearing No.021510021001406 with Andhra Bank, Kamareddy Branch and SB Account bearing No. 912010002418127 with Axis Bank, Kamareddy Branch. It is further stated that purporting to the investigation in the above crime, the Investigating Officer conducted searches at the house of the revision petitioner and seized the original registered sale deed bearing document No.1097 of 2016 and xerox copy of sale deed bearing document No.8724 of 2016 and also instructed the Managers of Andhra Bank and Axis Bank, Kamareddy Branches to freeze the above said accounts, due to which the revision petitioner is facing untold hardship to carryout his business and to meet his day-to-day necessities. It is further stated that the revision petitioner is in no way concerned or connected with the case registered against the 2nd respondent/AO-2.

(3.) The 1st respondent/complainant filed counter before the Court below stating that the revision petitioner is suspected to be a benami of the 2nd respondent and the main case was registered against the 2nd respondent for the offences punishable under Section 13 (1) (d) read with Section 13 (2) of the Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988 and that the Investigating Officer is having objection to defreeze the accounts and return the documents mentioned in the petition. It is also stated in the counter that on enquiry, the 2nd respondent stated that he is having seven other properties at various places on his name and in the name of his family members and kept the original documents with his childhood friend i.e., the revision petitioner herein. During the searches, the documents pertaining to all the seven properties belonging to the 2nd respondent and his family members were found in the residence of the revision petitioner, which clearly goes to show the nexus between them and as such all the documents were seized and produced in the Court. It is also stated that two bank accounts of the revision petitioner were found with huge transactions in the accounts, for which he could not give probable and convincing explanation. Therefore, the Investigating Officer sent a requisition to the concerned banks to freeze the account as the revision petitioner is suspected to be a benami to the 2nd respondent. It is also stated that the case is under investigation and at this stage, defreezing of the said accounts and return of documents is not possible as the revision petitioner may withdraw or divert the amount and, therefore, prayed to dismiss the petition.