Research › Search › Judgment

Orissa High Court · body

2013 DIGILAW 10 (ORI)

Sanatan Das v. State

2013-01-08

B.K.NAYAK

body2013
JUDGMENT B. K. NAYAK, J. : This revision has been filed by the petitioners challenging the order dated 17.08.2012 passed by the learned Special Judge (Vigilance), Sambalpur I/C in Misc. Case No. 20 of 2012, arising out of Vigilance G.R.Case No. 50 of 2012 corresponding to Sambalpur Vigilance P.S.Case No. 64 of 2012 rejecting the application filed by the petitioners for release of money deposited in the account of petitioner No. 2 in the ICICI Bank, Jharsuguda and the account of petitioner No. 1 in the Bank of India, Rourkela. Petitioner Nos. 2 and 3 are respectively the son and wife of petitioner No. 1, who is working as Superintending Engineer in the WESCO, Bargarh. 2.On the basis of FIR, Sambalpur Vigilance P.S.Case No. 64 of 2012 corresponding to Vigilance G.R.Case No. 50 of 2012 has been initiated against petitioner No. 1 for alleged possession of assets disproportionate to his known sources of income. In course of investigation the Vigilance Police seized inter alia the ICICI Bank Pass Book A/c No. 046801511247 of Jharsuguda Branch belonging to petitioner No. 2-Saurav Das and a Bank of India Pass Book A/c No. 52010100004261 of Rourkela Branch belonging to petitioner No. 1- Sanatan Das and directed the Bank authorities not to allow operation of the said Bank accounts. Petitioner No.2, who is admittedly an employee of Vedanta Alumina Ltd., Jharsuguda, had to go to U.S.A. for higher education for which he was in need of money. The petitioners, therefore, filed CRLMC No. 1458 of 2012 before this Court to allow them withdrawal of some money from the seized accounts so that petitioner No. 2 would be able to pursue his higher studies in U.S.A. Since the petitioners had not moved the learned Special Judge Vigilance for release of the Pass Books, this Court by order dated 26.07.2012 passed in the CRLMC directed the petitioners to move the learned Special Judge, Vigilance. Accordingly, the petitioners filed a petition under Section 457 of the Cr.P.C. for release of the amount deposited in the aforesaid two bank accounts. Accordingly, the petitioners filed a petition under Section 457 of the Cr.P.C. for release of the amount deposited in the aforesaid two bank accounts. The said petition has been rejected by the impugned order on the ground that when the investigation is still going on to ascertain the actual source out of which the amounts were cedited to the accounts, the release of the amounts at this stage would cause prejudice to the investigation and that there are various amounts in the names of the petitioners including share and mutual funds which can be utilized to meet the expenses. 3.The learned counsel for the petitioners submits that so far as the ICICI Bank account of petitioner No. 2 is concerned, a total sum of Rs. 8,53,416/- stands deposited in the said account, major portion of which is the salary of petitioner No. 2 which he received from Vedanta Alumina Ltd., Jharsuguda where he was working and that only Rs. 3 lakhs and some odd has been deposited in the said account by way of clearance of cheques received by petitioner No. 2 from some of his relations as amounts borrowed. It is his submission that since petitioner No. 2 is not an accused in the case and the statement of the ICICI Bank account does not reveal crediting of any other sum except the salary and the borrowed money there is no reason why the said amount shall not be released in favour of petitioner No. 2, who is actually in need of money as he is pursuing his higher studies in U.S.A. 4.Learned counsel for the Vigilance Department, on the other hand, submits that petitioner No. 2 has LIC policies and he can also withdraw money from his P.F. account for the purpose of meeting his educational expenses. He also submits, relying upon the decision of the Apex Court reported in (2000) 18 OCR (SC) 711; State of Maharashtra v. Tapas D. Neogy, that in the matter of investigation of offence under Prevention of Corruption Act, the police officer has power to seize property which includes bank account of the accused or any of his relations and prohibit the operation of the said account if such assets have direct links with the commission of offence. 5.The decision relied upon by the learned counsel for the Vigilance Department only lays down that police officer while investigating a matter relating to the offence under Prevention of Corruption Act has power to seize property, which includes bank accounts of the accused or any of his relations and prohibit operation of the said account if such assets have direct links with the commission of the offence by the accused. The decision, in other words, suggests that the bank account which has prima facie no direct link with the commission of offence cannot be freezed. 6.Annexure-1 is the accounts statement of the ICICI Bank account of petitioner No. 2 which reveals that there is a total deposit of Rs. 8,53,416.70 by 18.04.2012. The said statement reveals that in the months of October, November and December, 2011 and January and February, 2012 salary received from the Vedanta Alumina Ltd. by petitioner No. 2 was deposited in the said account bringing the total amount to Rs. 5,73,416.70 by 1st March, 2012. Petitioner No. 2 withdrew some money in March, 2012 and the total deposit was reduced to Rs. 4,53,416/-. Thereafter, on 05.04.2012, 13.04.2012 and 16.04.2012 there were deposits respectively of Rs. 1,00,000/-, Rs. 1,00,000/- and Rs. 1,30,000/- by clearance of cheques issued by one Bijay Kumar Das, paternal uncle of petitioner No. 2 and others. With regard to deposit of salary amount from month to month the learned counsel for the Vigilance Department does not dispute the genuineness of those deposits. He was given opportunity to intimate the Court about the correctness of the deposits made in the said account on 05.04.2012, 13.04.2012, 16.04.2012 and 18.04.2012. Learned counsel for the Vigilance Department has not been able to satisfy the Court that the persons, who had issued cheques to petitioner No. 2 by way of hand loan for pursuing higher studies and have filed affidavits to that effect, had in fact no capacity to advance such amount. The correctness of the affidavits filed by Bijaya Kumar Das and Ashis Kumar Mohanty in support of advancing hand loans by way of cheques which were deposited in the ICICI Bank account of petitioner No. 2, have not been controverted. 7.In the circumstances, there is no reason as to why the amount standing in the ICICI Bank account of petitioner No. 2-Saurav Das shall not be allowed to be withdrawn subject to furnishing security. 7.In the circumstances, there is no reason as to why the amount standing in the ICICI Bank account of petitioner No. 2-Saurav Das shall not be allowed to be withdrawn subject to furnishing security. There is nothing on record to suggest that petitioner No. 2 is in receipt of any maturity value of LIC policies or that he had any money in any other undisputed account which he can utilize for the purpose of pursuing his higher studies. So far as the seized account of petitioner No. 1 standing in Bank of India, Rourkela Branch is concerned, I am not inclined to allow release of any amount from the said account. 8.In the circumstances, I allow the revision in part and direct that an amount upto Rs. 8 lakhs standing in the seized ICICI Bank Account No. 046801511247 of petitioner No. 2-Saurav Das shall be allowed to be withdrawn by him subject to his furnishing property security to the extent of withdrawal amount. The CRLREV is accordingly disposed of. CRLREV disposed of.