ORDER : A. Badharudeen, J. These are Criminal Miscellaneous Cases filed under Section 528 of the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita , 2023, by one Maya and Balakrishnan T. respectively, aggrieved by the common order dated 15.09.2025 in C.M.P.Nos.131/2025 and 130/2025 in VC No 5/2024/SCK on the files of the Enquiry Commissioner and Special Judge, Kozhikode. 2. Heard the learned counsel for the petitioners as well as the learned Special Public Prosecutor in detail. Perused the relevant documents. 3. The crux of the petition, as could be seen from the order itself, is the release of 17 Fixed Deposit Receipts seized by the Vigilance in a case alleging amassment of disproportionate assets by Smt.Maya, who was working as Tahsildar in Revenue Department. Sri.Balakrishnan T. is Smt.Maya’s husband. The prayer in Crl.M.C.No.9012/2025 is as under: “to modify the common order dated 15.09.2025 in CMP No.131/2025 in VC No.5/2024/SCK to the effect that the additional condition to produce bank guarantee for an amount of Rs.5,00,000/- may be deleted and petitioner may be permitted to release the FD receipt on executing the bond for the same amount with 2 solvent sureties.” 4. Similarly, the prayer in Crl.M.C.No.9076/2025 is under: “..to modify the common order dated 15.09.2025 in CMP No.130/2025 in VC No.5/2024/SCK to the effect that the additional condition to produce bank guarantee for an amount of Rs.5,00,000/- may be deleted and petitioner may be permitted to release the FD receipt on executing the bond for the same amount with 2 solvent sureties.” 5. After hearing both sides, the learned Special Judge allowed both petitions by imposing conditions and the common order reads as under: “In the result, petitions are allowed on the following conditions: 1. The Investigating Officer shall produce the following documents before this Court. 11 Fixed Deposit Receipts (Nos.9906 and 10282 to 10286) in Kodoor Service Co- operative Bank, F.D. Receipt No.00185 in the Malappuram Employees Co-operative Society, Pass Book of Term Deposit at Kodoor Post Office in the name of the accused and locker key. 6 Fixed Deposit Receipts (Nos.1732 to 1737) in Kodoor Rural Co-operative Bank in the name of the husband of the accused. 2. The petitioner shall obtain certified copies of the above Documents from this Court and shall substitute the Documents with the certified copies obtained from the Court. 3. 6 Fixed Deposit Receipts (Nos.1732 to 1737) in Kodoor Rural Co-operative Bank in the name of the husband of the accused. 2. The petitioner shall obtain certified copies of the above Documents from this Court and shall substitute the Documents with the certified copies obtained from the Court. 3. Petitioners shall execute a bond for Rs.50,00,000/- (Rupees Fifty Lakhs only) with two solvent sureties and shall produce a bank guarantee for Rs.50,00,000/- (Rupees Fifty Lakhs only) for Nationalized Bank which shall be kept valid by the petitioner until the competition of the investigation and in case of Final Report against the petitioner is filed, the bank guarantee shall be ensured until the completion of the trial. 4. The freezing Order passed by the investigating Officer with respect to the Fixed Deposit of Rs. 10,00,000/- (Rupees Ten Lakhs only) in the name of the accused at Indian Bank, Malappuram Branch is vacated. 5. The Office is directed to release 6 Fixed Deposit Receipts (No.1732 to 1737) of Kodoor Service Co-operative Bank to the husband of the accused. 6. The Office is directed to release 11 Fixed Deposits Receipt (Nos.9906 to 9911 and 10282 to 10286) Kodoor Service Co-operative Bank, F.D. Receipt No.00185 in the Malappuram Employees Co- Operative Society, Pass Book of Term Deposit at Kodoor Post Office and locker key to the accused on proper acknowledgment.” 6. Now, the petitioners would submit that order of the learned special Judge directing production of Bank Guarantee for release of the Fixed Deposit Receipts and key of the bank locker where the gold ornaments seized by the vigilance are kept, is onerous and therefore, the same would require interference. In this connection, the learned counsel for the petitioners placed decision of this Court in Bijumon v. State of Kerala , reported in 2025 KLT OnLine 1707, with reference to paragraph Nos.7 and 8, which read as under: “7. Section 8 of the Criminal Law Amendment Ordinance says that the District Judge may refrain from ordering attachment if sufficient security in lieu of the property in question is offered by the accused. Section 8 of the Criminal Law Amendment Ordinance reads: “8. Section 8 of the Criminal Law Amendment Ordinance says that the District Judge may refrain from ordering attachment if sufficient security in lieu of the property in question is offered by the accused. Section 8 of the Criminal Law Amendment Ordinance reads: “8. Security in lieu of attachment:- Any person whose property has been or is about to be attached under this Ordinance may at any time apply to the District Judge to be permitted to give security in lieu of such attachment and where the security offered and given is in the opinion of the District Judge satisfactory and sufficient, he may withdraw or, as the case may be, refrain from passing, the order of attachment.” 8. The learned counsel for the petitioner would submit that even as per the case of the respondent, the property covered by settlement deed No.1043 of 2010 was acquired not during the check period. The said property was obtained by the petitioner not for any consideration, but from his father by way of a gift. When Section 3 of the Criminal Law Amendment Ordinance says that the money or other property that the accused had procured by means of the offence is liable for attachment, there can be no impediment for accepting the property obtained by the accused non-gratuitously as security. Here, the property covered by settlement deed No.1043 of 2010 was obtained by the petitioner not during the check period even. In such circumstances, I am of the view that there can be no prohibition for accepting the property covered by settlement deed No.1043 of 2010 as security for releasing the fixed deposit receipts, provided, the said properties is worth enough to secure the amount of fixed deposits. The learned Special Public Prosecutor points out that a building was constructed on the said property, regarding which the respondent has a contention that the construction was made using ill gotten money. If so, the building may be liable for forfeiture. Therefore, it is made clear that acceptance of the property covered by settlement deed No.1043 of 2010 as security will not be a bar for proceeding against the building by the respondent in accordance with law.” 7. If so, the building may be liable for forfeiture. Therefore, it is made clear that acceptance of the property covered by settlement deed No.1043 of 2010 as security will not be a bar for proceeding against the building by the respondent in accordance with law.” 7. The learned counsel for the petitioners placed another decision of this Court in Basheer M. v. State of Kerala , reported in 2025 KHC OnLine 922 , wherein this Court, while considering a property attached under the Criminal Law Amendment Ordinance , 1944 as incorporated under Section 18A of the PC Act, 1988 as amended in 2018, directed furnishing of security in terms of Section 8 of the Criminal Law Amendment Ordinance , 1944. In Basheer M’s case (supra), this Court considered the impact of Section 18A of the PC Act, 1988 as amended in 2018 and under Section 8 of the Criminal Law Amendment Ordinance , 1944, and observed in paragraph Nos.20 and 21 as under: “20. Section 8 of the Ordinance provides a remedy to the person whose property has been or is about to be attached under this Ordinance may, at any time apply to the Judge to permit him to give security in lieu of such attachment and where the security offered and given is in the opinion of the Judge satisfactory and sufficient, he may withdraw or, as the case may be, refrain from passing, the order of attachment. 21. On perusal of the Rules, in comparison with the orders impugned, it is discernible that the learned Special Judge has passed the common order in a case where the amount involved is 28,78,399/-. (i.e., in VC No.1/2019). But the attachment order seems to have been passed over the entire property without considering the valuation of the property. In fact, what is the valuation of the property is not discernible from the records. (i.e., in VC No.1/2019). But the attachment order seems to have been passed over the entire property without considering the valuation of the property. In fact, what is the valuation of the property is not discernible from the records. Even though it cannot be held at this stage that the Special Judge ordered attachment of the property in excess of the statutory mandate since it has been provided under Section 8 of the Ordinance that a remedy is available to a person whose property has been, or is about to be, attached under the Ordinance, to permit the Judge to accept security in lieu of such attachment and the security offered and given is in the opinion of the Judge satisfactory and sufficient, on accepting the security, the Judge could withdraw the attachment if attachment already passed or refrain from passing an order of attachment if attachment not passed. Since the order of the learned Special Judge could not be found as illegal and the entire properties have been attached in a case involving disproportionate assets to the tune of Rs.28,78,399/- (as alleged by the prosecution), the attachment should be confined to the property which would fetch the said amount and not beyond that.” 8. Apart from that, the learned counsel for the petitioners has produced decision of the Apex Court in Sunderbhai Ambalal Desai v. State of Gujrat , reported in (2002) 10 SCC 290 , wherein the Apex Court generally dealt with the release of valuable articles, such as gold or silver ornaments or articles studded with precious stones, including valuables. 9. In this connection, the learned Special Public Prosecutor would submit that, insofar as the release of Fixed Deposit Receipts and the key of the locker now sought for and allowed by the learned Special Judge on production of Bank Guarantee concerned, there is a decision of this Court in Shaji K.M. v. State of Kerala , reported in 2023 (6) KHC 364 , wherein this Court while considering the release of gold ornaments as well as the currency notes seized from the accused by the Vigilance, considered the decision of the Apex Court in Sunderbhai Ambalal Desai’s case (supra) and Section 451 Cr.P.C. with the aid of a Division Bench ruling of this Court in Suresh Serve V. v. State of Kerala, reported in 2020(3) KLT 395 . In paragraph No.22 of the said decision, this Court observed as under: “22. We are cognizant of the fact that it may be humanly impossible to visualize all probable situations under which the power vested in a criminal court under Section 451 Cr.P.C. could be sought to be invoked. For the same reason, we think that there cannot be any enumeration of straight-jacket formulae suiting all the situations. We, therefore, respectfully following the guidelines in Sunderbhai Ambalal Desai's case frame additional points in respect of disposal of money and jewellery by invoking Section 451 Cr.P.C. We explicitly clarify that the additional points shown below are intended to supplement the guidelines in Sunderbhai Ambalal Desai's case and not to supplant them. (i) Normally, currency notes can be returned to a claimant, if, after taking such evidence as the court deems fit in the facts and circumstances in each case, he could establish a prima facie right to get the money released. The court shall, in that event, take adequate measures to prevent the evidence being lost, altered or destroyed. (ii) If, in a given case, currency note/notes happen to be a material piece of evidence, for eg., a blood stained currency note involved in a murder case, its release under Section 451 Cr.P.C. may result in destruction of evidence. In such cases, courts should be cautious to see whether return of the currency note/notes would prejudicially affect trial of the case and it may decline the request, if it is so. (iii) In the case of jewellery, apart from the preparation of a proper panchanama of the articles, taking photographs, etc., mandated in Sunderbhai Ambalal Desai's case, following aspects also may be considered depending on the facts in each case: (a) If, in a case, the allegation is that one or two gold ornaments have been stolen or snatched away from the de facto complainant, a criminal court invoking Section 451 Cr.P.C. after taking necessary evidence and following the directions in Sunderbhai Ambalal Desai's case, may release the article under Section 451 Cr.P.C. with the safeguards mentioned in the above decision and also with a direction to produce the same in the same condition as and when directed, especially when there is a rival claimant for the ornaments. If there is no rival claimant and no dispute is raised by the accused regarding the nature, shape, weight, etc. If there is no rival claimant and no dispute is raised by the accused regarding the nature, shape, weight, etc. of the ornaments in question, in appropriate cases, the court may even return the same without a condition to produce them in the same condition on a later date. (b) In a case involving theft of huge quantity of gold ornaments from a jewellery store or from a jewellery manufacturing unit, the court should take extra precautions to see whether the claimant has established, by cogent evidence, a strong prima facie case to show his entitlement for staking the claim. In such cases, there ought to be records to support his claim. If there are sufficient documentary evidence showing his unquestionable entitlement to the articles, especially in a case where there is no rival claimant for the jewellery, we find no reason for imposing a condition that the entire jewellery shall be produced in the same condition, as and when directed. If it is established by evidence that the ornaments claimed by him are stock in trade in the jewellery store, no earthly purpose will be served by returning them to the claimant by imposing such restrictions. Hence, such a condition need not be imposed in all cases, disregarding the factual situation in each case. We answer the reference accordingly.” 10. It is also submitted by the learned Special Public Prosecutor that when items covered by the disproportionate assets are seized by the Investigating Officer, Section 8 of the Criminal Law Amendment Ordinance 1944, has no application, as the said provision deals with attachment of property under the said Ordinance. It is submitted by the learned Special Public Prosecutor that releasing the items of property on security would be fatal to the prosecution. He also submitted that if the petitioners could produce immovable property as security, they could very well produce Bank Guarantee on mortgaging the said property as security towards the Bank Guarantee. 11. On perusal of the common order, the learned Single Judge directed execution of bond as well as furnishing of Bank Guarantee for the release of the seized items. 12. On perusal of the judgments cited and the facts involved in this case, it could be seen that, in this matter, release of Fixed Deposit Receipts as well as the key of the locker where gold ornaments are kept, are the prayers. 12. On perusal of the judgments cited and the facts involved in this case, it could be seen that, in this matter, release of Fixed Deposit Receipts as well as the key of the locker where gold ornaments are kept, are the prayers. But in the two decisions placed by the learned counsel for the petitioners, viz., Bijumon’s case (supra) and Basheer M.’s case (supra), this Court dealt with the release of immovable properties attached under Section 18A in terms of the Criminal Law Ordinance, 1944. But in the instant case, the reliefs sought for in respect of articles otherwise seized by the Vigilance without resorting to the provisions of the Criminal Law Amendment Ordinance , 1944, in a case, where the prosecution alleges that Smt.Maya, while working as Tahsildar, amassed income disproportionate to her assets and the above items are amassed by Smt.Maya in disproportionate to her lawful income and therefore, the items seized are all items included as part of her disproportionate assets. The report of the Vigilance and the prosecution records would show that Rs.1,61,56,571/- wealth was amassed by Smt.Maya disproportionate to the known source of her income. 13. According to the learned counsel for the petitioner, production of security in terms of Section 8 of the Criminal Law Ordinance, 1944 would serve the purpose and therefore, the order impugned may be modified by directing to furnish security. 14. The question to be considered herein is whether the court is justified in ordering the release of Fixed Deposit Receipts, gold ornaments, and other valuables seized by the Vigilance in cases where the allegation is that those items were procured by the accused using funds from the wealth amassed disproportionate to their known sources of income. It is not in dispute that, as held in Bijumon’s case (supra) as well as Basheer M’s case (supra), when the Vigilance attaches property by invoking power under Section 8 of the Criminal Law Amendment Ordinance , 1944, which is made applicable as per Section 18A of the PC Act, 1988, as amended in 2018, as per Section 8 of the Ordinance, the Courts have the power to direct release of the items on furnishing security in terms of Section 8 of the Criminal Law Amendment Ordinance , 1944. But coming to Fixed Deposit Receipts, gold ornaments and other valuable items seized not under the Criminal Law Amendment Ordinance , 1944, alleging that those are items obtained by the accused from the wealth amassed disproportionate to their known sources of income, Section 8 has no application, as those seizures are not in accordance with the provisions of the Criminal Law Amendment Ordinance , 1944. In this connection, it is relevant to refer that when a person is capable of furnishing security for release of an attachment, by providing an immovable property free from encumbrance, by using the said immovable property, the person could very well easily obtain Bank Guarantee also. When a Bank Guarantee is obtained, if there is failure to return the released items, ultimately during trial if it is found as items obtained are the outcome of disproportionate income, it would be easy for the prosecution to invoke the Bank Guarantee. However, when an immovable property is offered as security, then the prosecution should have to go with the procedure for realising the value of the amounts by way of public sale and otherwise, and the same is a long lasting cumbersome procedure that would stand in the way of prosecution to realise the disproportionate assets and enjoy the accused to take benefit out of the assets amassed out of disproportionate income. 15. Having considered all these aspects, this Court is of the view that the ratio of Shaji K.M.’s case (supra), is to be followed as the binding precedent when ordering the release of Fixed Deposits, gold ornaments and valuables seized by the Vigilance alleging the same are the outcome of disproportionate assets. At the same time, when an attachment is made following the procedure in Criminal Law Amendment Ordinance , 1944, the procedure under Section 8 of the Criminal Law Amendment Ordinance , 1944, to be opted to lift the attachments on furnishing security in terms of Section 8 . 16. Holding the law as stated above, the modification sought for in these petitions, to avoid production of Bank Guarantee by offering immovable property as security, is liable to fail. In the result, the outcome is that none of the prayers in these petitions can be allowed. Therefore, these petitions are dismissed.