P. MADHUSUDHAN 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.897 of 2018 in Cr.No.7/RCOICU-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, was dismissed.

(2.) Brief facts of the case are that the revision petitioner filed Crl.M.P.No.897 of 2018 under Section 451 of Cr.P.C., seeking to defreeze the S.B Account bearing No.404206041000001 with Vijaya Bank, Kamareddy Branch and S.B. Account bearing Nos.1013021014064 and 101302104001002 with Gayatri Bank, Kamareddy Branch. The averments in the said petition disclose that the revision petitioner is the proprietor of M/s. Trinethra Marketers, Kamareddy and is running the said business since 15 years and that he is having S.B. Account bearing No.404206041000001 with Vijaya Bank, Kamareddy Branch and Account bearing No.1013021014064 with Gayatri Bank, Kamareddy Branch in the name of his business firm M/s. Trinethra Marketers and other S.B. Account bearing No.101302104001002 with Gayatri Bank, Kamareddy Branch, in the name of the revision petitioner. It is further stated that purporting to the investigation in the above crime, the Investigating Officer found some entries in the account of Pasupunuri Venkata Ramana and he stated that he along with the revision petitioner used to do real estate business and they have sold out one property in the month of April, 2018 and both of them received money and as such the Investigating Officer instructed the Managers of Vijaya Bank and Gayatri 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 offence 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. 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 P.Venkata Ramana. During the search, the documents pertaining to all the seven properties belonging to the 2nd respondent and his family members were found in the residence of one P.Venkata Ramana, which clearly goes to show the nexus between them and as such all the documents were seized and produced in the Court. The said P.Venkata Ramana also stated that he along with the revision petitioner used to do real estate business and that they sold one property in April, 2018 and both of them received money and in this regard three bank accounts of the revision petitioner were searched and found 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 accounts 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 is not possible as the revision petitioner may withdraw or divert the amount and, therefore, prayed to dismiss the petition.