JUDGMENT : (Prayer: Criminal Revision Case is filed to direct the third respondent to permit the petitioner to withdraw the amounts lying to the credit of Savings Bank Account bearing No.895393603, held by the petitioner with them, pending disposal of the above criminal revision petition.) 1. The Criminal Appeal has been filed to direct the third respondent to permit the petitioner to withdraw the amounts lying to the credit of Savings Bank Account bearing No.895393603, held by the petitioner with them, pending disposal of the above criminal revision petition. 2. The case of the revision petitioner is that on 26.08.2014, the first respondent registered a case against this petitioner and the second respondent herein in RC MAI 2014 A 0037 for the offence alleged u/s.120 B of IPC r/w Sections 7,12,13 (2) and 13(1) (d) of the Prevention of Corruption Act,1988. In pursuant to the case registered by the first respondent in RC MAI 2014 A 0037, the first respondent had frozen his saving bank account bearing No.895393603 held by the petitioner with the third respondent herein. 3. There is no nexus or connection whatsoever as between the offence alleged and the amount frozen in the Saving Bank Account of the petitioner with the third respondent herein. The amount lying to the credit of his frozen Bank Account with the third respondent herein has got a specific and definite source and the same has been properly accounted and subjected to tax during the relevant assessment years. When the offence alleged is prima facie sham and ex-facie false, the first respondent herein does not have locus standi/authority whatsoever to freeze the Bank Account of the petitioner held with the third respondent, which credit has got a definite source and properly accounted for and subjected to tax by the petitioner herein. The first respondent herein does not have any legal rights to freeze the said bank account of the petitioner herein. 4. His wife Mrs. Chithiraivadivu, is a cardiac patient. Due to fluctuation in her cardiac functioning, his wife Mrs. Chithiraivadivu, has developed “Systemaic Hypertension, Hypothyroisdism and Diabetic Nephropathy”. He is in urgent need of money to meet out the medical expenditure for his wife Mrs. Chithiraivadivu. The petitioner herein has already spent more than Rs.40,00,000/- from and out of the borrowed funds to provide medical treatment to his wife. Due to fluctuation in her cardiac functioning, his wife Mrs. Chithiraivadivu, has developed “Systemaic Hypertension, Hypothyroisdism and Diabetic Nephropathy”. He is in urgent need of money to meet out the medical expenditure for his wife Mrs. Chithiraivadivu. The petitioner herein has already spent more than Rs.40,00,000/- from and out of the borrowed funds to provide medical treatment to his wife. The lenders of the petitioners are demanding the petitioner to repay the said money. In addition to the above, the petitioner needs to meet out the recurring expenditure in providing medical treatment to his wife. Since he is only drawing subsistence allowance owing to his suspension because of the false case foisted by the respondent on him, he finds it difficult even to run his family he is in a debt trap. There is no connection and nexus whatsoever, as between the offence alleged and the salary credited into his said bank account by the appropriate government. As the petitioner herein is in emergent need of money to continue the medical treatment already provided to his wife, he had not other alternative except to approach learned Principal Special Judge for CBI Cases by way of filing Criminal M.P.No.6794 of 2015. 5. Without appreciating the fact-in-issue, the Learned Principal Special Judge for CBI cases dismissed the above Crl.M.P.No.6794 of 2015 mechanically. Aggrieved with the order passed by the Special Judge dated 23.11.2015, the petitioner is before this court. 6. The case of the first respondent is that during the course of investigation in CBI case No. RC MAI 2014 A 0037 registered on 26.08.2014 by CBI, Chennai from the reliable information, it came to know that the petitioner while functioning as public servant during the period between 01.01.2009 and 26.08.2014 during the above said check period accumulated wealth and properties to the tune of Rs.1,82,50,323/- which is disproportionate extent of Rs.1,00,23,695/- as against his total income of Rs.1,48,98,227/- and extent of Rs.66,71,591/-. Further, it is found that the petitioner and his family members have been maintaining more than 25 bank accounts in their favour. Since the banking transaction seems to be suspicion and the amounts were deposited in the accounts out of ill-gotten money, the bank accounts were frozen u/s.102 of Cr.P.C., and the same was duly intimated to the learned Principal Special Judge for CBI cases, Chennai. Since the banking transaction seems to be suspicion and the amounts were deposited in the accounts out of ill-gotten money, the bank accounts were frozen u/s.102 of Cr.P.C., and the same was duly intimated to the learned Principal Special Judge for CBI cases, Chennai. Freezing of 29 bank accounts of the petitioner including the said Saving Bank account of the petitioner maintained with Indian Bank, main Branch, Coimbatore. But the petitioner filed a petition before the Learned Principal Special Judge for CBI Cases, Chennai praying for defrozen the said Saving Bank as he claimed that he has been receiving genuine agricultural income and the same has been deposited in the said Saving Bank account. After registration of a fresh disproportionate assets case in Cr.No.RC MAI 2015 A 0028 u/s.13(2) r/w.3(1) (d) of PC Act, against the petitioner on 18.09.2015, the petitioner had filed a petition before the Learned Principal Sessions Judge for CBI cases, Chennai, for transfer of part of the documents and materials objects from No.RC MAI 2014 A 0037 and Cr.No.RC MAI 2015 A 0028, which includes transfer of all 29 frozen bank accounts of No.RC MAI 2014 A 0037 to RC MAI 2015 A 0028. On 09.10.2015, the Learned Principal Sessions Judge, CBI case, Chennai, permitted for transfer of the frozen bank accounts and part of the documents this instance case Cr.No.RC MAI 2015 A 0028. 7. From the registration of the corruption case in No. RC MAI 2014 A 0037 against the petitioner, he has been filing petition before the courts one after another and thereby, he deliberately raised to prevent the smooth and fair investigation of the cases CBI ACB, Chennai has registered 3 corruption cases i.e., No. RC MAI 2014 A 0037; MAI 2015 A 0023, and RC MAI 2015 A 0028 against the petitioner. Subsequent to registration of first case during the investigation it is found that the petitioner and his family members had been maintaining more than 25 bank accounts. Since it creates doubt, the bank accounts were frozen by the first respondent u/s.102 of Cr.P.C., and the same was duly informed to the Principal Sessions Court, CBI case, Chennai. Subsequent to registration of first case during the investigation it is found that the petitioner and his family members had been maintaining more than 25 bank accounts. Since it creates doubt, the bank accounts were frozen by the first respondent u/s.102 of Cr.P.C., and the same was duly informed to the Principal Sessions Court, CBI case, Chennai. Considering the background of the petitioner that there are strong reasons to believe that the money available in his bank account No.895393603 maintained by third respondent is part of the ill-gotten money obtained by him by abusing his official position, the CBI also registered another case against the petitioner in Cr. No.RC MAI 2015 A 0028 u/s.13(2) r/w.3(1) (d) of PC Act, against the petitioner for having disproportionate assets and the list of properties includes this amount and therefore, the account bearing No.895393603 has also been frozen in another case in Cr.No.RC MAI 2015 A 0028, after observing al mandatory legal formalities u/s.102 of Cr.P.C., by the investigation officer of that case. If the amount is found to be ill-gotten money, after trial, the same is to be confiscated. Hence, the petition is liable to be dismissed. 8. Learned counsel for the petitioner would submit that the petitioner owns agricultural land at Kuruchi village, Anbil Town, Lalgudi Taluk, Thiruchirappalli District. He cultivates sugarcane with other agricultural products in his said agricultural land. M/s. Kothari Sugars & Chemicals Ltd., Kattur Sugarcane Chemicals Ltd is having its sugarcane production factory unit at Kattur village, Lalgudi Taluk, Thiruchirappalli District. The sugarcane produced in the agricultural land owned by the petitioner was purchased by M/s. Kothari Sugars & Chemicals Ltd., Kattur in its entirety. Further, the petitioner had supplied sugarcane to the above said company in between 01.04.2012 and 30.06.2014. In consideration for the sugarcane supplied by him, the company had paid a total sum of Rs.9,44,239/- to the petitioner in between 01.04.2012 and 30.06.2014. He has also submitted that the particulars of the land and the sugarcane supplied and the amount received by him was deposited into the SB account bearing No.895393603 held by the petitioner with the third respondent herein. In addition to the above, the income generated by the petitioner from and out of paddy sales by way of cash for the period between 01.04.2012 and 30.06.2014 amounting to Rs.1,93,000/- was also deposited into the above said bank account. In addition to the above, the income generated by the petitioner from and out of paddy sales by way of cash for the period between 01.04.2012 and 30.06.2014 amounting to Rs.1,93,000/- was also deposited into the above said bank account. the details as mentioned in the revision petition by way of the agricultural income generated by him through paddy and sugarcane. Hence, for the period between 01.04.2012 and 30.06.2014 aggregates to Rs.11,37,239/- was held by the petitioner as deposit in the above said account with the third respondent. The third respondent has also credited interest into the said bank account for the amount lying to the credit of the petitioner as per the prevailing bank rates for the relevant period in his income returns for the assessment year 2013-2014 and 2014-2015. The petitioner has duly represented the said agricultural income and remitted tax to the appropriate account. As on 31.07.2014, there was a credit of Rs.12,03,524.71/- in the above said SB account with the third respondent as he stated in his revision petition that he is in urgent need of money to meet out of his medical expenses of his wife and for other recurring expenditure. Therefore, he filed a petition in Crl.M.P.No.6794/2015 before the learned Principal Special Judge, for CBI cases and without considering the above said facts the learned Principal Special Judge, for CBI cases mechanically dismissed the petition. Therefore, the petitioner is before this court with this revision petition. 9. Learned Additional Public Prosecutor would submit that the case against the petitioner registered by the CBI u/s.120 of IPC r/w. Sections 7, 12 and13 (2) and 13(1) (d) of the PC Act, 1988. There are three cases pending against this petitioner at the stage of investigation. Ever since the registration of first corruption case in RC MA1 2004 A 0037 against the petitioner, he has been filing petitions before the courts one after another. Already the Saving Bank account No.895393603 was defreezed and he is remitting sub-sistance allowance every month. Pending investigation of the disproportionate and other corruption cases against this petitioner, due to strong suspicion all the accounts have been frozen. If this account is allowed to defreeze and take away the amount, the same cannot be recovered amount. In case the prosecution succeeded the case, the amount is to be confiscated. Pending investigation of the disproportionate and other corruption cases against this petitioner, due to strong suspicion all the accounts have been frozen. If this account is allowed to defreeze and take away the amount, the same cannot be recovered amount. In case the prosecution succeeded the case, the amount is to be confiscated. Since the investigation has not been completed, charge sheet not yet been filed and hence, this petition is liable to be dismissed. 10. Heard both sides. Perused the records placed before this court carefully. 11. According to the learned counsel for the petitioner, the petitioner owns agricultural land at Kuruchi village, Anbil Town, Lalgudi Taluk, Thiruchirappalli District. He cultivates sugarcane with other agricultural products in his said agricultural land. M/s. Kothari Sugars & Chemicals Ltd., is having his sugarcane production factory unit at Kattur village, Lalgudi Taluk, Thiruchirappalli District and the said income and interest is also shown in income tax returns and the money is needed for his medical treatment of his wife and other recurring expenditure of his family against this, he filed before the learned Special Judge for CBI cases, and without considering the urgency, he mechanically dismissed the petition. 12. After arguments, today the learned counsel for the revision petitioner would submit a memo stating that the petitioner died on 07.11.2016 at 04.55 a.m., at 21 Apollo Hospitals, Greams Lane, Chennai – 600 006. For supporting his memo, he has annexed the certificate copy of a death certificate of the deceased petitioner. 13. According to the respondent, three cases have been filed against this petitioner and all the accounts have been frozen and the saving bank was released on the ground of salary account. Therefore, the same was defreezed and he is drawing the subsistence allowance and he is in the habit of filing petitions one after another. There is a strong suspicion that ill-gotten monies are being deposited in the said account. There is no genuine reason to allow this application. The learned Special Judge, CBI Cases, considering all the facts has rightly dismissed the petition. Therefore, this Revision petition is liable to be dismissed. 14. Perused the records and the admitted facts that three cases have been filed by the first respondent against this petitioner and in all the cases, investigation is going on. The learned Special Judge, CBI Cases, considering all the facts has rightly dismissed the petition. Therefore, this Revision petition is liable to be dismissed. 14. Perused the records and the admitted facts that three cases have been filed by the first respondent against this petitioner and in all the cases, investigation is going on. The counter filed by the respondent and other materials shows that the Special Court CBI has frozen of 28 accounts held in the name of the petitioner and his family members u/s.102 of Cr.P.C., The investigation is not yet been completed; already one salary account was defreezed. He is free to operate Saving Bank account. Disputed facts are that the contention of the petitioner is that the amount lying in the saving bank account vide No.895393603 are derived from agricultural income and the same has been shown in the income tax return. Per contra, the contention of the first respondent is that there are suspicious credits and debits taken place in the account, which needs investigation. Further, the petitioner has not paid income tax during the relevant assessment year but she has filed the same only after registration of series of CBI Cases. Under the said circumstances, it is not advisable to discuss about the source income and the amount lying in the saving bank account No.895393603 stands in the name of the revision petitioner especially when the allegation of corruption and misappropriation cases are pending investigation against this petitioner. Therefore, before completion of trial it, is not advisable to defreeze any bank account holding in the name of the petitioner or other members of the family. Under such circumstances, the petitioner is not entitled to get the relief as prayed for in the revision petition. 15. On perusal of the order passed by the trial court, it is seen that the trial court has elaborately discussed the matters and also considered the facts and circumstances of the cases and ultimately dismissed the application. Therefore, the order passed by the trial court in dismissing the CRL.MP.No.6794/2015 dated 23.11.15 does not suffer any material irregularity or patent legal infirmity in the eye of law and consequently this revision petition is liable to be dismissed. The revision petition is answered accordingly. In fine, this revision petition is dismissed and confirmed the order passed by the Trial Court in CRL.MP.No.6794/2015 dated 23.11.2015. Consequently, connected Miscellaneous Petition is closed.