Judgment :- The synopsis of the prosecution is as follows:- The respondent herein / Inspector of Police, Central Bureau of Investigation, Anti Corruption Bureau, Chennai has registered a case in R.C-MA1-2012-A-0024 under Section 120-B read with 420 and Section 13(2) read with 13(1)(d) of Prevention and Corruption Act, 1988, against the revision petitioner herein / third accused and two other accused viz., Mr.S.Gurusamy.A-1, formerly Chief General Manager, South Zone, M.M.T.C. Ltd., Chennai, Regional Office and Mr.V.Gurumurthy, A-2, former General Manager attached to the M.M.T.C. Limited, Chennai Regional Office, stating that during the period 2007 to 2009, M/s.Surana Corporation Limited, accused No.3 had purchased bullion (gold and silver) under the Stand-By Letter of Credit Scheme, through M.M.T.C.Limited and deposited the cost of the bullion arrived at on the basis of notional price and notional exchange rate prevailing on the date of delivery. 2. As per the above mentioned basis and procedure Stand-By Letter of Credit transactions are located through on line bullion trading system, but accused 1 and 2 and unknown officials attached to the M.M.T.C Limited, in order to favour M/s.Surana Corporation Limited, abandoning the bullion trading system and made all transactions manually, thereby making M/s.Surana Corporation Limited to unduly become rich to the tune of Rs.18 Crores. For the said purpose, the accused created the provisional invoice as the final invoice and kept the differential cost under purchase rate difference. The accused officials manipulated the System and intentionally failed to reconcile the differences in the exchange rate and to recover the premium and other accompanying costs and thereby the accused 1 and 2 and unknown officials of M.M.T.C. Limited, Chennai, in connivance with M/s.Surana Corporation Limited and caused a willful loss to the tune of Rs.18 Crores to M.M.T.C. Limited, and corresponding wrongful gain to the accused themselves. 3. It is further stated that the accused 1 and 2 while working with M.M.T.C. Limited, Chennai Regional Office, allowed the third accused to conspire to cheat the Government of India, M.M.T.C. Limited manipulated several documents and others relating to Bullion trading books of accounts, fixed deposit receipts / bank statements / challans, day book, journal vouchers and various other documents pertaining to M.M.T.C Limited. Hence, the Criminal case has been levelled against the accused persons. 4. Hence, the Criminal case has been levelled against the accused persons. 4. Thereafter, the respondent has filed a petition in Crl.M.P.No.3680 of 2012 before the VIII Additional Principal and Special Judge for C.B.I. Cases, Chennai and prayed to issue search warrants to conduct searches at the residential and office premises of the accused, the same was allowed. On the basis of the search warrants issued by the learned judge, the searches were conducted at the office and the residential premises of the accused persons. In the search, 400 Kilograms of gold was recovered from the petitioner and the recovered gold was kept in the safety lockers of A-3's Company and the safety lockers were also seized. 5. Under these circumstances, the revision petitioner herein / third accused had filed two petitions, in Crl.M.P.No.3767 of 2012 and prayed to remove the seal of the safety lockers on the ground floor in M/s.Surana Corporation Limited, at New No.161, Old No.79 and to return the keys thereof (78 Nos.). The revision petitioner had filed another petition in Crl.M.P.No.3861 of 2012, to direct the respondent to release the passport and the personal bank accounts and cash of Rs.5,50,000/- and Rs.2,33,72,200/-. 6. Both the applications were resisted by the respondent after filing a counter statement. The learned judge after hearing the arguments of the learned counsels on either side and on perusing the averments of both sides, the said two petitions were dismissed and a common order was passed in Crl.M.P.No.3767 of 2012 and Crl.M.P.No.3861 of 2012 on 04.07.2012. Aggrieved by the said common order dated 04.07.2012, the above two criminal revisions have been filed by the third accused. 7. The learned counsel for the revision petitioner has narrated the entire history of the case and also submitted the dates and events of the case in the revision petitions. Learned counsel for the revision petitioner submits that the learned trial judge has found that M.M.T.C. Limited had failed to produce the supporting documents for this case before the civil Court. The main allegation of the prosecution case that the revision petitioner had caused loss to the Central Government to the tune of Rs.18 Crores. The revision petitioner is prepared to deposit the said amount without prejudice to the case. The main allegation of the prosecution case that the revision petitioner had caused loss to the Central Government to the tune of Rs.18 Crores. The revision petitioner is prepared to deposit the said amount without prejudice to the case. The learned counsel further submits that two Civil Suits have been filed in O.S.No.1206 of 2012, on the file of XV Assistant Civil Court, Chennai and another case in O.S.No.1116 of 2012. The revision petitioner has obtained interim order restraining the respondent from making any complaints to the Banks and other authorities either directly or indirectly, in writing or otherwise alleging that the petitioner is due any sums to the respondent till they reconcile the figures as arrived between the parties. 8. Learned counsel further submits that the revision petitioner has filed a defamation case against the respondent in C.C.No.1547 of 2012, on the file of XIII Metropolitan Magistrate's Court, Egmore, Chennai, the same has been challenged by the respondent before the Hon'ble High Court for quashing in Crl.O.P.No.12737 of 2012, which is pending. Learned counsel further submits that the revision petitioner has continuously made efforts with M.M.T.C. Limited for reconciliation of the accounts. Actually, the petitioner already paid the differential amount between the provisional invoices and the final invoices and that the same is supported by un-contraverted documents. The respondent has ceased the personal accounts of the revision petitioner, as such, the fundamental rights and personal rights of the petitioner have been violated. The revision petitioner had voluntarily agreed to a bank guarantee to a tune of Rs.18 Crores, which is the amount involved in the alleged case of the prosecution, the same was not considered by the learned judge. 9. Learned counsel further submits that the revision petitioner's business has been affected for the past two months because of the baseless prosecution case. The revision petitioner's employees are suffering since the revision petitioner's business was disturbed due to the sealing of their locks and transactions coming to a halt. The revision petitioner, is a Public Limited Company and has been contributing to the State Exchequer, a sum of Rs.137.81 Crores for the year 2009-2010, 2010-2011, 2011-2012. The revision petitioner's company has received a Reward for Export and Operational Excellence, but the respondent registered the criminal case in order to harass the revision petitioner. The respondent had filed a false affidavit before the trial Court and obtained a search warrant. The revision petitioner's company has received a Reward for Export and Operational Excellence, but the respondent registered the criminal case in order to harass the revision petitioner. The respondent had filed a false affidavit before the trial Court and obtained a search warrant. The affidavit does not corroborate with the contentions made in the F.I.R and as such there is no prima facie case on the side of the prosecution, the same was proved before the Civil Court by way of Civil Suit in O.S.No.1206 of 2002 and obtained an interim order restraining the respondent herein. As such, the prosecution case is belittled. 10. Learned counsel further submitted that all the transactions with M.M.T.C. Limited are incorporated in the books of accounts and duly audited. Every payment of the M.M.T.C. Limited have been done through cheques or electronic transfer of funds through banks, therefore, the question of manipulating the accounts, challans, general vouchers etc., are purely a figment of one's imagination. All these documents were handed over to M.M.T.C. more than nine months back. The lower Court has failed to consider the ongoing reconciliation proceedings for the past 14 months between the revision petitioner and the M.M.T.C. Limited. The City Court granted an interim injunction restraining the M.M.T.C. Limited from making any false allegation against the petitioner. In the instant case, no preliminary inquiry was conducted by the C.B.I. It is only after the searches being conducted that a preliminary inquiry is now being pursued, therefore the respondent violated the C.B.I. mannual. 11. Learned counsel for the revision petitioner has filed two volumes of types set of papers containing the business transactions of the Company. Supporting the case, the learned counsel for the revision petitioner has cited the following judgments:- (i) STATE OF MAHARASHTRA v. TAPAS D. NEOGY reported in (1997) 7 SCC 685 "Criminal Procedure Code, 1973 – S.102(1)-Police Officer's power to seize property – Pre-conditions for applicability – Word "property"-Import of – Bank account of accused or his relation, held, constitutes "property" – If circumstances exist creating suspicious of commission of any offence in relation to the bank account, S.102(1) is attracted empowering the police officer investigating the offence to seize the bank account and issue order prohibiting the account from being operated upon – Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988. ... ... The bank account of the accused or any of his relations is "property" within the meaning of Section 102 Cr.P.C and a police officer in course of investigation can seize or prohibit the operation of the said account if such assets have direct links with the commission of the offence which the police officer is investigating into. Corruption in public offices has become so rampant that it has become difficult to cope up with the same. Then again the time consumed by the Courts in concluding the trials is another factor which should be borne in mind in interpreting the provisions of Section 102 Cr.P.C. and the underlying object engrafted therein, inasmuch as if there can be no order of seizure of the bank account of the accused then the entire money deposited in a bank which is ultimately held in the trial to be the outcome of the illegal gratification, could be withdrawn by the accused and the Courts would be powerless to get the said money which has any direct link with the commission of the offence committed by the accused as a public officer. Under the Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988, in the matter of imposition of fine under sub-section(2) of Section 13, the legislatures have provided that the Courts in fixing the amount of fine shall take into consideration the amount or the value of the property which the accused person has obtained by committing the offence or where the conviction is for an offence referred to in clause (e) of sub-section (1) of Section 13, the pecuniary resources or property for which the accused person is unable to account satisfactorily. The interpretation given in respect of the power of seizure under Section 102 Cr.P.C. is in accordance with the intention of the legislature engrafted in Section 16 of the Prevention of Corruption Act. The interpretation given in respect of the power of seizure under Section 102 Cr.P.C. is in accordance with the intention of the legislature engrafted in Section 16 of the Prevention of Corruption Act. Though law has been laid down as above, but so far as the present case is concerned, the impugned order of the High Court has already been given effect to and the accused has been operating his account, and so, the same need not be interfered with." (ii) Padmini v. The Inspector of Police reported in 2008 (3) CTC 657 "Freezing of Bank Account-Mandatory procedure-Investigation Officer should submit report to Judicial Magistrate having jurisdiction immediately – Notice to be issued to petitioner – Violation of procedure render entire proceeding liable to be quashed. Code of Criminal Procedure, 1974 (2 of 1974), Section 102 – Freezing of Bank Account – Failure to follow mandatory procedure – Order is liable to be quashed – Liberty to initiate fresh proceeding after following mandatory provisions was granted." (iii) B.Ranganathan v. State and others reported in 2003 CRI.L.J.2779 "Criminal P.C.(2 of 1974), S.102-Prevention of Corruption Act (49 of 1988), S.22, S.13-Freezing of Bank account – not only of accused but other family members – By Inspector of Police in rank – Competency assailed – Supdt. of Police, Vigilance and Corruption empowered Inspector of Police to investigate offence under Act against petitioners – Specific acts that Inspector of Police is empowered to do clearly spelt out in authorisation – Inspector of Police only authorised to inspect Bankers book – Freezing of accounts operated by petitioners and his family members by Inspector of Police – Illegal – Case of disproportionate wealth can be proved from source of income and not by freezing accounts." "(iv)Chandrasekar, R. V. Inspector of Police reported in 2002 (5) CTC 598 Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973, Section 102 – Power of Police Officer to seize certain property – Freezing of bank account – Requirements – Section 102 empowers a Police Officer to seize any property – Police Officer in course of investigation can prohibit operation of bank account as is a property, provided it is found under circumstances creating suspicious that offence has been committed – When a property not found under circumstances creating suspicious of offence, Section 102 of Code of Criminal Procedure does not apply – Police Officer shall forthwith report same to Magistrate and give notice to petitioner and allow him to operate bank account subject to executing a bond undertaking to produce amount in Court as and when required – On facts it is held that a sequel to discovery of commission of offence is not sufficient to attract Section 102 of Code of Criminal Procedure." 12. Learned counsel for the respondent argued that the respondent had registered a criminal case against the revision petitioner and two others on the basis of relevant documents. The respondent had filed an affidavit anew and narrated the entire facts of the case for obtaining search warrants. The same was well considered by the learned judge and permission was granted for the search. On the strength of the judicial order, the search was conducted and the lockers were sealed. As such, the respondent has followed the procedural law. Learned counsel further submitted that the enquiry is at a preliminary stage. The accused 1 and 2 in connivance with the revision petitioner herein had willfully caused loss to the Government to the tune of 18 Crores. Therefore, the criminal case has been filed under Section 120-B, read with 420 I.P.C. and also Prevention of Corruption Act. Learned counsel further submitted that the enquiry is at a preliminary stage. The accused 1 and 2 in connivance with the revision petitioner herein had willfully caused loss to the Government to the tune of 18 Crores. Therefore, the criminal case has been filed under Section 120-B, read with 420 I.P.C. and also Prevention of Corruption Act. The search list was prepared in the presence of independent witnesses and inventory proceedings were drawn in the presence of independent witnesses. At the time of the search, the revision petitioner was present, a copy of the search proceedings was furnished to him. Therefore, the respondent has followed all legal procedures. Further, a detailed investigation is required in this case. The officials of M.M.T.C and Directors of the revision petitioner's company is involved in this case for creating falsification of accounts. 13. The learned Public Prosecutor vehemently argued that on the reliable information received by the Superintendent of Police, who is attached to the C.B.I., Anti-Corruption Bureau, Chennai, the State C.B.I. registered this case. On the same cause of action, civil suits have been filed which are not binding on the criminal proceedings. The revision petitioner also filed a defamation case against the respondent, on the file of the XIII Metropolitan Magistrate Court, Chennai, the said proceedings are now challenged by the respondent herein for quashing before the Hon'ble High Court. Until the disposal of the quash petition, the revision petitioner cannot claim any interim relief. Learned counsel further submits that the revision petitioner caused severe loss to the Government. The revision petitioner was involved in this practice for a length of time. If the revision petitioner's passport is released to him, there is an eminent possibility of him absconding. 14. The learned Public Prosecutor has cited the following judgments in support of his contentions:- (i) STATE v. N.M.T. JOY IMMACULATE reported in 2004 SCC (Cri )1722 "Criminal Procedure Code, 1973 – S.397(2) – Order granting police remand – Revision against – Maintainability of – Held, said order being a purely interlocutory order, revision against it not maintainable – "Interlocutory Order" – Meaning, taken note of In relation to a murder case, one Ms J Surrendered herself before the Court. J was remanded to judicial custody. On application moved by I.O. for grant of police remand of J, she was given in police custody for one day by the Magistrate concerned. J was remanded to judicial custody. On application moved by I.O. for grant of police remand of J, she was given in police custody for one day by the Magistrate concerned. During the said police custody, J made some confessional statements and at her instance a wristwatch and shirt of the deceased and also the nylon rope used in the commission of murder were recovered. Two weeks thereafter, J filed a revision petition before the High Court wherein it was prayed that the order of the Magistrate granting police custody be set aside as the same was against the principles laid down in Section 167 Cr.P.C. Prayer was also made to pass such other and further orders as the Court may deem fit and proper. In affidavit filed therein, serious allegations against the police personnel were made. The High Court disposed of the revision petition by issuing several directions. The High Court directed (a) that the order granting police custody in respect of J was ex facie illegal and consequently, it was non est and had to be erased from the records (b) that since the said order became non est, the consequent so-called confession and alleged recovery had no evidentiary value, (c) that the investigation conducted by the police concerned was not bona fide and false records had been created to implicate J, (d) that J had been wrongfully and illegally detained by the police for four days and was harassed and tortured by the police personnel, (e) that the Commissioner of Police must take departmental action against the police personnel who were responsible for the illegal detention and other obscene acts committed on J, and (f) that the Government of State concerned will pay a compensation of Rs.1,00,000/- to J. A direction was also issued to the State Government to issue circulars to all the police stations that women accused / witnesses should not be brought to the police station and then must be inquired by the women police at the place where they reside. Allowing the appeals and setting aside the impugned judgment and order of the High Court, the Supreme Court. Held: The order of remand has no bearing on the proceedings of the trial itself nor can it have any effect on the ultimate decision of the case. Allowing the appeals and setting aside the impugned judgment and order of the High Court, the Supreme Court. Held: The order of remand has no bearing on the proceedings of the trial itself nor can it have any effect on the ultimate decision of the case. If an order of remand is found to be illegal, it cannot result in acquittal of the accused or in termination of proceedings. A remand order cannot affect the progress of the trial or its decision in any manner. Therefore, applying the test laid down in Madhu Limaye case, (1977) 4 SCC 551 , it cannot be categorised even as an "intermediate order". The order is, therefore, a pure and simple interlocutory order and in view of the bar created by sub-section (2) of Section 297 Cr.P.C., a revision against the said order is not maintainable. The High Court, therefore, erred in entertaining the revision against the order of the Metropolitan Magistrate granting police custody of the accused." (ii) K.K.PATEL V. STATE OF GUJARAT reported in (2000) 6 SCC 195 "Police – Bombay Police Act, 1951 (22 of 1951) – S.161(1) Act done under colour of any duty – Meaning – includes act done under cloak of duty – Offence under S.166 I.P.C. envisages act done under cloak of public servant – Where complaint filed alleging offences under Ss.166, 167, 219 I.P.C. and other ancillary offences, objection that it having been filed beyond the period prescribed under S.161(1) of the Act was barred, held on facts, sustainable – Penal Code, 1860, S.166 – Words and Phrases – "under colour of duty", "aforesaid" 15. From the forgoing discussions, this Court is of the considered view:- (i) The prosecution case is at a preliminary investigation stage, (ii) To remove the seal of the seized lockers and to release the passport of the third accused, if not allowed, the revision petitioner will not be placed in hardship, at the same time, if the petition is allowed, the prosecution case will be paralyzed. (iii) The revision petitioner had started the business on the basis of his receiving a duly recognized letter from the Government of India, Ministry of Commerce and Industry, dated 06.12.2010, 23.03.2011 and 16.03.2012 respectively.As per these licences, the Rules as indicated by the Ministry are to be determined as to violation against R.B.I. Guidelines and Customs Rules and Regulations, which is the main issue in this case. (iv) Bank guarantee offered by the revision petitioner is at present inappropriate until the determination of the third point, as above, regarding the violation of the licence. (v) Sufficient opportunities must be given to the prosecution for investigation and inquiry on the basis of the relevant records, therefore, the revision petitioner is not entitled to receive any relief at this stage. 16. On verifying the facts and circumstances of the case and arguments advanced by the learned counsels on either side and on perusing the common order passed in Crl.M.P.No.3767 of 2012 and Crl.M.P.No.3861 of 2012 in R.C.No.24/A/2012, on the file of Principal Special Judge for C.B.I. Cases, Chennai, dated 04.07.2012 and this Court's view as listed above [(i) to (v)], the above revisions are dismissed. 17. In the ultimate analysis, the above revisions in Crl.R.C.No.683 of 2012 and Crl.R.C.No.684 of 2012 are dismissed. Consequently, the orders passed in Crl.M.P.No.3767 of 2012 and Crl.M.P.No.3861 of 2012, dated 04.07.2012 is confirmed. Consequently, connected miscellaneous petitions are closed. Accordingly ordered.