HAJJI MOHAMMED SATTAR 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 24.07.2018, passed in Crl.M.P.No.357 of 2018 in Crime No.02/RCA-CIU/2017, on the file of the Principal Special Judge for SPE and ACB Cases-cum-IV Additional Chief Judge, City Civil Court, Hyderabad, wherein an application filed by the revision petitioner/third party (hereinafter referred to as "the revision petitioner") to defreeze his two bank accounts seized by the officials, was dismissed.

(2.) Brief facts of the case are that the revision petitioner filed Crl.M.P.No.357 of 2018 under Section 102, 451 and 457 of Cr.P.C., seeking to defreeze his NRI bank accounts i.e., Account Nos. 4911393923 and 4911393930 of Kotak Mahindra Bank, Banjara Hills, Hyderabad Branch. The averments in the said petition discloses that the revision petitioner came to know that the officials of Anti Corruption Bureau, Central Investigation Unit, Hyderabad, have registered a case in Crime No.02/RCACIU/2017, under Section 13 (1) (e) read with 13 (2) of the Prevention of Corruption Act against one Mohammad Yousuf, Sub-Registrar. It is stated that in the month of June, 2017, the authorities of Anti Corruption Bureau, have freezed the bank accounts of the revision petitioner. It is submitted that the respondent authorities, without giving any notice or intimation and without giving an opportunity of being heard, have suddenly freezed the two bank accounts of the revision petitioner. It is further submitted that the revision petitioner is in no way concerned with the said Mohd. Yousuf, Accused Officer in the said crime and there is no relationship between them. In such circumstances, freezing the bank accounts of the revision petitioner, who is an NRI, for more than two years is nothing but giving hardship to an NRI. It is further submitted that absolutely there is no material produced by the respondent/complainant before the Court till this day to show that the bank accounts of the revision petitioner have any nexus with the commission of the alleged offence. It is also submitted that the respondent/complainant has not complied the mandate contained in Section 102 of Cr.P.C. and, therefore, freezing of the bank accounts of the revision petitioner is not proper and is liable to be defreezed. Non-issuance of any notice to the revision petitioner as required under Section 102 (3) of Cr.P.C., which makes it clear that the respondent/complainant is bent upon to harass the revision petitioner for his no fault at all. There is no material available on record to create any suspicion about the commission of offence by the revision petitioner. It is further submitted that the revision petitioner is not concerned with the alleged crime and if the bank accounts of the revision petitioner are not defreezed, he would be subjected to heavy and irreparable loss, which cannot be compensated by any means. It is also submitted that the respondent/complainant did not find any material to relate/connect/link the amounts lying in the bank accounts of the revision petitioner and it is the obligatory upon the Police to show the circumstances under which the accounts were seized. Therefore, in the absence of any material relating/linking the amounts in the bank accounts of the revision petitioner with the Accused Officer, freezing of the bank accounts is illegal and it caused hardship to the revision petitioner. It is also submitted that no prejudice would be caused to the respondent/complainant if the bank accounts of the revision petitioner are defreezed.

(3.) The respondent/complainant filed counter stating that during the course of investigation in Crime No.223 of 2017, the Police, Balanagar Police Station conducted search in the residence of Mohd. Yousuf (Accused Officer), wherein they found a copy of receipt for Rs.10,05,000/- in the name of the revision petitioner issued by Telugu Cine Workers Cooperative Housing Society Limited and the said receipt was seized by the Investigating agency. It is also submitted that during the course of investigation in the present Crime, it came to light that the revision petitioner had booked a HIG Flat in his name after paying an amount of Rs.10,05,000/- and the copy of the receipt for payment of advance was seized in Crime No.223 of 2017 and later the revision petitioner departed from the proposal to purchase the HIG Flat and requested for refund of the advance payment. As per his request, the Telugu Cine Workers Co-operative Housing Society Limited, returned the money through cheque No.463867, dated 15.04.2017. It is further submitted that the bank accounts of the revision petitioner were freezed, the bank statement of A/c No.4811393930 was secured from Kotak Mahindra Bank Limited, Banjara Hills Branch and on perusal of the said account, on 05.05.2017, the revision petitioner received an amount of Rs.10,05,000/- through cheque No.463767 and on 18.05.2017 the revision petitioner credited an amount of Rs.10,05,000/- to the account of Mohd. Imamuddin, who is the father-in-law of Accused Officer, vide Cheque No.6. It is also submitted that the Accused Officer was trying to purchase the properties in the name of the revision petitioner, the receipt for payment of advance was found in the house of the accused Officer and the refund amount was finally credited to the account of Mohd. Imamuddin, who is the father-in-law of Accused Officer, it is too early and premature to come to a conclusion about the nexus between the Accused Officer and the revision petitioner and some more financial transactions may be unearthed in future.