I.V.R.Krishnam Raju, vs Central Bureau Of Investigation,
2021 Latest Caselaw 2242 AP

     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

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

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

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

THE HON'BLE SMT JUSTICE LALITHA KANNEGANTI

(Disposed of)

CRIMINAL REVISION CASE No.386 of 2021

Date : 01.07.2021

IKN