THE HON'BLE SMT JUSTICE LALITHA KANNEGANTI
CRIMINAL REVISION CASE No.386 of 2021
ORDER:-
This Criminal Revision Case under Sections 397 and 401 of
the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 (for short 'Cr.P.C.') is filed
with a prayer to set aside the condition i.e. 'shall produce the
petition schedule document as and when required before this
Court', imposed in the order dated 04.02.2021 passed in
Crl.M.P.No.3 of 2021 in crime No.RC/04(A) of 2018 by learned
Principal Special Judge for C.B.I. Cases, Visakhapatnam.
2. The case of the petitioner is that respondent-CBI registered a
case in RC 04(A)/2018 against the accused with an allegation that some bank officials of IDBI Bank, Bheemavaram, West Godavari District along with some other persons, valuers and auditors entered into criminal conspiracy, abused their official position and dishonestly sanctioned KCC loans in favour of 226 borrowers arranged by eight aggregators on the basis of fake documents in respect of lease deeds. In the course of investigation, the officials conducted search at the residential premises of the petitioner in Hyderabad and his office premises by name All India, Prawn Farmer Association in Bheemavaram on 28.03.2018 and seized original sale deed document bearing No.6051 of 2017 as shown in serial No.1 of the search list. The case of the petitioner is that he availed loan from the bank in the year 2011 and he had completely repaid the said amount, as such he is no way concerned with the above crime. As the petitioner was in need of the said document for 2 his business activities he filed a petition under Section 451 read with 457 Cr.P.C. before learned Special Judge for CBI Cases, Visakhapatnam for return of the original sale deed bearing document No.6051 of 2017 pertaining to plot No.948 admeasuring 1095 square meters in S.No.120 (new) of Shaikpet village and S.No.102/1, Hukkumpet village, Hyderabad, which was seized by search memo dated 28.03.2018 and stated that the petitioner will not sell or mortgage and to produce the document before the Court as and when required.
3. The Court below while allowing and directing the respondent-CBI to return the subject document has imposed conditions that the petitioner shall substitute the document with self attested Photostat copy and shall file a written undertaking before the Court that he shall produce the petition schedule document before the Court as and when directed for the purpose of investigation or trial. Assailing the condition that 'the petitioner shall produce the petition schedule document as and when required before the Court', the present revision is filed.
4. Heard Smt. Jami Madhavi, learned counsel for the petitioner and Sri A.Channakeshavulu, learned Public Prosecutor for CBI.
5. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the residential premises of accused No.4, in Hyderabad and the office premises of All Prawn Farmers Association, Bhimavaram were searched along with the petitioner's house and some documents including the documents which are no way related to the above crime were seized. He submits that the Court below though 3 observed that the petitioner is a third party and there are no evidence recorded against him, has imposed the above condition without assigning any reasons. He further submits that the entire investigation is completed and the subject document is not related to the present crime and hence, the petitioner need not produce the same for investigation or for trial.
6. Learned counsel for the petitioner places reliance on order dated 20.03.2021 passed by this Court in W.P.Nos.9338 of 2020 and batch and submits that in the said judgment the Court observed that as the property is purchased before the commission of the offence, it does not fall under the definition of "proceeds of crime" and therefore it cannot be attached or confiscated under the Act and consequently, the attachment and subsequent proceedings before the Adjudicating Authority for confiscation of the properties would have to be struck down.
7. Learned Public Prosecutor for CBI submits that basing on the application filed by the petitioner, the above order was passed and the petitioner cannot assail the same.
8. This Court is unable to appreciate the contention of the learned counsel for the petitioner for the reason that in the application filed before the Court below, the petitioner specifically averred at para No.4 as "I submit that I am entitled for the said document and that CBI, ACB had unnecessarily seized the said document. The said document is under the custody of the Hon'ble Court which I came to know later. I undertake that I will not sell 4 alter and mortgage, the said document and produce before the Hon'ble court as and when required".
9. The Court below has passed the order by imposing conditions basing on the application filed by the petitioner and this Court finds no error on the face of the order passed by the Court below and this revision deserves to be dismissed. However, learned counsel for the petitioner submits that in view of the order passed by this Court in W.P.Nos. 9338 of 2020 and batch, they will file an appropriate application seeking modification of the order before the Court below.
10. In view of the above, this criminal revision case is disposed of giving liberty to the petitioner to take appropriate steps available under the law.
As a sequel, pending miscellaneous petitions, if any, shall stand closed.
_____________________________________ JUSTICE LALITHA KANNEGANTI Date : 01.07.2021 IKN 5 THE HON'BLE SMT JUSTICE LALITHA KANNEGANTI (Disposed of) CRIMINAL REVISION CASE No.386 of 2021 Date : 01.07.2021 IKN