Bombay High Court
Rohan S/O. Ashok Jagdale And ... vs State Of Maharashtra Thr. Dy. Sp ... on 4 July, 2017
Bench: V.M. Deshpande
revn.187.16 1
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY
NAGPUR BENCH AT NAGPUR
CRIMINAL REVISION NO. 187 of 2016
1. Rohan S/o Ashok Jagdale,
Aged about 40 years,Occ-Business,
2. Mrs. Madhulika W/o Rohan Jagdale,
Aged Adult, Occupation-business,
Both R/o 604,Mansarowar Terraces,
Byramji Town, New Colony,Nagpur.
3. M/s Airan Consultants Pvt. Limited,
Through its Director
Shri Rohan Ashok Jagdale,
Having registered Office at 101-103,
VCA Complex, Civil Lines,Nagpur. ..... APPLICANTS
...V E R S U S...
1. State of Maharashtra,
Through Dy.S.P. Gadchandur,
District-Chandrapur.
2. M/s Ultratech Cement Limited,
Koparna, Gadchandur,District-
Chandrapur,
Through Mr.Venkata
Satish Malladi. ...NON-APPLICANTS
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Shri M.P.Naidu,Advocate for applicants.
Shri R.S.Nayak,A.P.P. for State.
Shri M.Pillai,Advocate for intervenor.
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
::: Uploaded on - 07/07/2017 ::: Downloaded on - 08/07/2017 00:45:38 :::
revn.187.16 2
CORAM:- V. M. DESHPANDE, J.
DATED :- JULY 4,2017
ORAL JUDGMENT
Rule. Rule is made returnable forthwith. Heard finally
by consent of learned counsel for the parties.
2. Following are the prayers made in the present revision
application.
1) The Hon'ble Court be pleased to set aside
the order of freezing the bank accounts and
to permit the applicant no.1 to operate his
Home Savings A/c no.912010031120819
with Axix Bank, Shankar Nagar,Nagpur and
also Home savings A/c No.1481055125006
with HSBC Bank, Sadar,Nagpur, permit
applicant no.2 to operate her Home
Savings A/c No.148168610006 with HSBC
Bank,Sadar,Nagpur and applicant no.3 to
operate its Current A/C
No.9120200035315669 with Axix Bank,
Civil Lines,Nagpur during the pendency of
trial upon furnishing solvent surety as
directed by this Hon'ble Court.
2) Be further pleased to grant an opportunity
to the applicants to lead evidence to
demonstrate that the amount lying in the
above bank accounts of applicants had
absolutely no nexus with any illegal and
unauthorised amount obtained either by
accused no.1 or any other person before
final decision of the above case in the
interest of justice, equity and fairness.
3) Any other relief which this Hon'ble Court
deems fit under the facts and circumstances
be also granted in favour of applicants.
3. Heard learned counsel for the applicants in extenso.
The only submission that was made before this Court by learned
counsel for applicants is that the present applicants are not
accused persons in a crime registered with P.S.Koparna vide
Crime No.47/2013, under Sections 420,465,468,201,104,409 r/w
Section 34 of the Indian Penal Code and therefore, their bank
accounts cannot be freezed.
4. The compilation of the present revision shows that an
application under Section 457 of Code of Criminal Procedure was
filed in the Court of learned J.M.F.C.Rajura in whose Court
R.C.C.No.127/2015 is pending. By the said application under
Section 457 of Cr.P.C. the present applicants sought defreezing of
saving accounts. The learned Magistrate vide order dated
22/10/2016 rejected the said application. The perusal of the
prayer clauses which are reproduced in the present order shows
that the said order rejecting the application under Section 457 of
Cr.P.C. for defreezing the accounts is not at all challenged.
5. Further, the compilation of the present revision shows
that in the year 2015 a Criminal Writ Petition No.156/2015 was
filed by the present applicants and Division Bench of this Court
framed following question on the submissions made by the
present applicants.
"Whether Bank account of petitioners, who are not
accused in any crime can be freezed by the
Investigating Agency, under Section 102 of the
Criminal Procedure Code?"
The Division Bench of this Court has specifically recorded a
finding that the amount earned by committing an offence by
accused Shekhar Wankhede and his Firm are found to be parked
in the bank accounts of the present applicants and therefore
action of police in freezing the accounts of the applicants cannot
be said to be illegal. Thus, the question which is reck up again
before this Court in the present revision is already squarely
answered by Division Bench of this Court.
6. The applicants are relying on a memorandum of
understanding dated 11/1/2013. The said was also taken into
consideration in the earlier writ petition. In my view, the present
revision is nothing but second attempt for a cause which was
already decided by this Court. Hence, there is no merit in the
revision and it is dismissed.
Rule is discharged with no order as to costs.
JUDGE
kitey
