Madras High Court
C.N.Ilankumaran vs State Represented By on 21 November, 2023
Author: G.Ilangovan
Bench: G.Ilangovan
Crl.OP(MD)Nos.16476 of 2023 batch etc.
BEFORE THE MADURAI BENCH OF MADRAS HIGH COURT
Dated: 21/11/2023
CORAM:
THE HON'BLE MR JUSTICE G.ILANGOVAN
Crl.OP(MD)Nos.16476 to 16479, 16482, 16485, 16486, 16489,
16490, 16493 to 16496 of 2023
and
Crl.MP(MD)Nos.13122 to 13127 of 2023
(1)Crl.OP(MD)No.16476 of 2023:-
1.C.N.Ilankumaran
2.C.N.Raja Chidambaram : Petitioners
Vs.
1.State represented by
The Inspector of Police,
Economic Offence Wing,
Madurai.
(Crime No.3 of 2023)
2.The Branch Manager,
Canara Bank,
Madurai East Veli Branch,
St Mary's Building,
East Veli Street,
Madurai-625 001. : Respondents
Prayer: Criminal Original Petition has been filed
under section 482 of the Criminal Procedure Code, to
direct the 1st respondent to de-freeze the Joint Account
No.1509101156029 (Savings) standing in both the names of
the petitioners maintained with the 2nd respondent and
pass such order or further orders.
For Petitioners : Mr.P.H.Aravindh Pandian
Senior counsel
for M/s.V.Muthukamatchi
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
1/56
Crl.OP(MD)Nos.16476 of 2023 batch etc.
For 1st Respondent : Mr.S.Ravi
Additional Public Prosecutor
(2)Crl.OP(MD)No.16477 of 2023:-
M/s.Harshitha Hospitals Private Limited,
(CIN:U85100TN2009PTC071421)
Rep. by its Authorised Signatory
C.N.Ilankumaram : Petitioner
Vs.
1.State represented by
The Inspector of Police,
Economic Offence Wing,
Madurai.
(Crime No.3 of 2023)
2.The Branch Manager,
Canara Bank,
Madurai East Veli Branch,
Door No.159-162, Kamarajar Salai
Near Theppakulam,
Madurai. : Respondents
Prayer: Criminal Original Petition has been filed
under section 482 of the Criminal Procedure Code, to
direct the 1st respondent to de-freeze the Account
No.1509256015968 standing in the name of the petitioner
maintained with the 2nd respondent and pass such order or
further orders.
For Petitioner : Mr.P.H.Aravindh Pandian
Senior counsel
for M/s.V.Muthukamatchi
For 1st Respondent : Mr.S.Ravi
Additional Public Prosecutor
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
2/56
Crl.OP(MD)Nos.16476 of 2023 batch etc.
(3)Crl.OP(MD)No.16478 of 2023:-
1.C.N.Raja Chidambaram
2.Karthika Devi : Petitioners
Vs.
1.State represented by
The Inspector of Police,
Economic Offence Wing,
Madurai.
(Crime No.3 of 2023)
2.The Branch Manager,
Canara Bank,
Madurai East Veli Branch,
St.Mary's Building,
East Veli Street,
Maurai-625 001. : Respondents
Prayer: Criminal Original Petition has been filed
under section 482 of the Criminal Procedure Code, to
direct the 1st respondent to de-freeze the Joint Account
No.1011101055344 (Savings) standing in the name of the
petitioners maintained with the 2nd respondent and pass
such order or further orders.
For Petitioners : Mr.P.H.Aravindh Pandian
Senior counsel
for M/s.V.Muthukamatchi
For 1st Respondent : Mr.S.Ravi
Additional Public Prosecutor
(4)Crl.OP(MD)No.16479 of 2023:-
I.Elamthalir : Petitioner
Vs.
1.State represented by
The Inspector of Police,
Economic Offence Wing,
Madurai.
(Crime No.3 of 2023)
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
3/56
Crl.OP(MD)Nos.16476 of 2023 batch etc.
2.The Branch Manager,
Canara Bank,
Madurai East Veli Branch,
Simakkal,
Madurai Poondhottam,
Madurai-625 001 : Respondents
Prayer: Criminal Original Petition has been filed
under section 482 of the Criminal Procedure Code, to
direct the 1 st
respondent to de-freeze the Account
No.1011101054381 (Savings) standing in the name of the
petitioner maintained with the 2nd respondent and pass
such order or further orders.
For Petitioner : Mr.P.H.Aravindh Pandian
Senior counsel
for M/s.V.Muthukamatchi
For 1st Respondent : Mr.S.Ravi
Additional Public Prosecutor
(5)Crl.OP(MD)No.16482 of 2023:-
M/s.Harshitha Hospitals Private Limited,
(CIN:U85100TN2009PTC071421)
Rep. by its Authorised Signatory
C.N.Ilankumara : Petitioner
Vs.
1.State represented by
The Inspector of Police,
Economic Offence Wing,
Madurai.
(Crime No.3 of 2023)
2.The Branch Manager,
Canara Bank,
HO:33, North Veli Street,
Simmakkal,
Madurai Main,
Madurai Poondhotam,
Madurai-625 001. : Respondents
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
4/56
Crl.OP(MD)Nos.16476 of 2023 batch etc.
Prayer: Criminal Original Petition has been filed
under section 482 of the Criminal Procedure Code, to
direct the 1st respondent to de-freeze the Account
No.1011201013444 standing in the name of the petitioner
maintained with the 2nd respondent and pass such order or
further orders.
For Petitioner : Mr.P.H.Aravindh Pandian
Senior counsel
for M/s.V.Muthukamatchi
For 1st Respondent : Mr.S.Ravi
Additional Public Prosecutor
(6)Crl.OP(MD)No.16485 of 2023:-
M/s.GS Medical Imagining Private Limited,
(CIN:U33110TN2022PTC12018)
Rep. by its Authorised Signatory
C.N.Ilankumaram : Petitioner
Vs.
1.State represented by
The Inspector of Police,
Economic Offence Wing,
Madurai.
(Crime No.3 of 2023)
2.The Branch Manager,
Canara Bank,
St.Marys Campus,
Ground Floor,
East Veli Street,
Madurai South Tk,
Madurai-625 001. : Respondents
Prayer: Criminal Original Petition has been filed
under section 482 of the Criminal Procedure Code, to
direct the 1st respondent to de-freeze the Account No.
125002945094 and Account No.120002868209 standing in the
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
5/56
Crl.OP(MD)Nos.16476 of 2023 batch etc.
name of the petitioner maintained with the 2nd respondent
and pass such order or further orders.
For Petitioner : Mr.P.H.Aravindh Pandian
Senior counsel
for M/s.V.Muthukamatchi
For 1st Respondent : Mr.S.Ravi
Additional Public Prosecutor
(7)Crl.OP(MD)No.16486 of 2023:-
M/s.Adanawin Amma Food Products Private Limited,
(CIN:U15100TN2019PTC27118)
Rep. by its Authorised Signatory
R.Karthika Devi : Petitioner
Vs.
1.State represented by
The Inspector of Police,
Economic Offence Wing,
Madurai.
(Crime No.3 of 2023)
2.The Branch Manager,
Canara Bank,
St.Marys Campus,
Ground Floor,
East Veli Street,
Madurai South Tk,
Madurai-625 001. : Respondents
Prayer: Criminal Original Petition has been filed
under section 482 of the Criminal Procedure Code, to
direct the 1st respondent to de-freeze the Account No.
1509201002411 standing in the name of the petitioner
maintained with the 2nd respondent and pass such order or
further orders.
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
6/56
Crl.OP(MD)Nos.16476 of 2023 batch etc.
For Petitioner : Mr.P.H.Aravindh Pandian
Senior counsel
for M/s.V.Muthukamatchi
For 1st Respondent : Mr.S.Ravi
Additional Public Prosecutor
(8)Crl.OP(MD)No.16489 of 2023:-
Auro Chits Pvt. Ltd.,
Represented by its Director,
Mr.A.Narayanaswamy : Petitioner
Vs.
1.The Competent Authority and
District Revenue Officer,
Madurai District.
2.The Inspector of Police,
Economic Offence Wing,
Thapalthanthi Nagar Extension,
Park Town,
Madurai.
3.The Manager,
Karur Vysya Bank Ltd., (Main Branch)
67-68-, T.P.K. Road,
Near Agrini Apartments,
Palanganatham,
Madurai-625 003. : Respondents
Prayer: Criminal Original Petition has been filed
under section 482 of the Criminal Procedure Code, to call
for the records pertaining to the order in C.No.
112(18)/INS/EOW/MDU/2003, dated 02.08.2023 on the file of
the respondent No.2 and set aside the same and
consequently direct the respondent No.3 to De-freeze the
Bank Accounts of the petitioner's company in Account
Number:1626115000007378 and 1626135000008547 maintained
in the Respondent No.3 within a time stipulated by this
court and pass such further or other orders.
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
7/56
Crl.OP(MD)Nos.16476 of 2023 batch etc.
For Petitioner : Mr.T.Lajapathi Raj
Senior counsel
for M/s.Lajapathi Roy Associates
For R1 and R2 : Mr.S.Ravi
Additional Public Prosecutor
(9)Crl.OP(MD)No.16490 of 2023:-
Karthika Devi
sole Proprietor of M/s.Adana Canteen
Having office at 3rd Floor,
129/3B, Harshita Hospitals,
Avaniyapuram Bye Pass,
Avaniyapuram,
Madurai-625 012. : Petitioner
Vs.
1.State represented by
The Inspector of Polite,
Economic Offence Wing II,
Madurai.
(Crime No.3 of 2023)
2.The Branch Manager,
Canara Bank,
St. Marys Campus,
Ground Floor,
East Veli Street,
Madurai South Tk,
Madurai-625 001. : Respondents
Prayer: Criminal Original Petition has been filed
under section 482 of the Criminal Procedure Code, to
direct the 1 st
respondent to de-freeze the Account No.
3113201003199 standing in the name of the Proprietorship
concern M/s.Adana Canteen maintained with the 2nd
respondent and pass such order or further orders.
For Petitioner : Mr.P.H.Aravinth Pandian
Senior counsel
for M/s.V.Muthukamatchi
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
8/56
Crl.OP(MD)Nos.16476 of 2023 batch etc.
For 1st Respondent : Mr.S.Ravi
Additional Public Prosecutor
(10)Crl.OP(MD)(MD)No.16493 of 2023:-
1.C.N.Ilankumaran
2.I.Elamthalir : Petitioners
Vs.
1.State represented by
The Inspector of Police,
Economic Offence Wing II,
Madurai.
(Crime No.2 of 2023)
2.The Branch Manager,
Canara Bank,
St. Marys Campus,
Ground Floor,
East Veli Street,
Madurai-625 001. : Respondents
Prayer: Criminal Original Petition has been filed
under section 482 of the Criminal Procedure Code, to
direct the 1st respondent to de-freeze the Joint Account
No.1011101054307 (Savings) standing in both the names of
the petitioners maintained with the 2nd respondent and
pass such order or further orders.
For Petitioners : Mr.P.H.Aravindh Pandian
Senior counsel
for M/s.V.Muthukamatchi
For 1st Respondent : Mr.S.Ravi
Additional Public Prosecutor
(11)Crl.OP(MD)No.16494 of 2023:-
Karthika Devi : Petitioner
Vs.
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
9/56
Crl.OP(MD)Nos.16476 of 2023 batch etc.
1.State represented by
The Inspector of Police,
Economic Offence Wing II,
Madurai.
(Crime No.2 of 2023)
2.The Branch Manager,
Canara Bank,
Madurai East Vali Branch,
St Mary's Building,
East Veli Street,
Madurai-625 001. : Respondents
Prayer: Criminal Original Petition has been filed
under section 482 of the Criminal Procedure Code, to
direct the 1st respondent to de-freeze the Account No.
1509131000142(Savings), Account No.1509131000142(Current)
standing in the name of the petitioner maintained with
the 2nd respondent and pass such order or further orders.
For Petitioner : Mr.P.H.Aravindh Pandian
Senior counsel
for M/s.V.Muthukamatchi
For 1st Respondent : Mr.S.Ravi
Additional Public Prosecutor
(12)Crl.OP(MD)No.16495 of 2023:-
M/s.GS Medical Imaging Private Limited,
(CIN:U33110TN2022PTC152018)
Rep. by its Authorised Signatory
C.N.Illankumaran : Petitioner
Vs.
1.State represented by
The Inspector of Police,
Economic Offence Wing II,
Madurai.
(Crime No.2 of 2023)
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
10/56
Crl.OP(MD)Nos.16476 of 2023 batch etc.
2.The Branch Manager,
Canara Bank,
New:22, Old 26, Duraisamy Road,
T.Nagar,
Chennai-600 017. : Respondents
Prayer: Criminal Original Petition has been filed
under section 482 of the Criminal Procedure Code, to
direct the 1st respondent to de-freeze the Account No.
120002447589 standing in the name of the petitioner
maintained with the 2nd respondent and pass such order or
further orders.
For Petitioner : Mr.P.H.Aravindh Pandian
Senior counsel
for M/s.V.Muthukamatchi
For 1st Respondent : Mr.S.Ravi
Additional Public Prosecutor
(13)Crl.OP(MD)No.16496 of 2023:-
C.N.Illankumaran : Petitioner
Vs.
1.State represented by
The Inspector of Police,
Economic Offence Wing II,
Madurai.
(Crime No.2 of 2023)
2.The Branch Manager,
Canara Bank,
Madurai East Veli Branch,
St Mary's Building,
East Veli Street,
Madurai-625 001. : Respondents
Prayer: Criminal Original Petition has been filed
under section 482 of the Criminal Procedure Code, to
direct the 1st respondent to de-freeze the Account No.
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
11/56
Crl.OP(MD)Nos.16476 of 2023 batch etc.
1509132000019 (Savings) standing in the name of the
petitioner maintained with the 2nd respondent and pass
such order or further orders.
For Petitioner : Mr.P.H.Aravindh Pandian
Senior counsel
for M/s.V.Muthukamatchi
For 1st Respondent : Mr.S.Ravi
Additional Public Prosecutor
COMMON ORDER
These criminal original petitions are filed seeking
for direction to the 1st respondent to de-freeze the
account and permit the petitioners to operate their the
account with the 2nd respondent Bank.
2.The facts in brief:-
The de-facto complainant lodged a complaint stating
that one Chellammal, Narayanasamy and Manivannan
approached him, on knowing that they are having money and
informed that the functioning of Neomax Properties
Private Limited having its Head Quarters at Madurai. In
the above said company, one Kamalakannan, Balasubramanian
and Veerasakthi and others are Directors. They informed
him that they also have invested money and benefited. If
money is deposited, it will become double in 2 ½ years.
They have also stated that they are offering high
interest rate. So, he and his mother were taken by the
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
Crl.OP(MD)Nos.16476 of 2023 batch etc.
above said Chellammal, Narayanasamy to the Head quarters
of the above said company. At that time, one
Kamalakannan, Balasubramanian and Veerasakthi and others
were present. They have shown some video clippings and
explained various schemes introduced by them. They have
also promised that they offer interest at the rate of 12%
to 30%. He was also informed that several branches are
functioning in several places and other companies also
conduct this business. And also informed that they
purchased various properties in various villages and
after forming lay out and developing the same they used
to sell the properties and the money will be returned to
him with double amount. For acknowledgement of the money,
they are giving certificates.
3.Believing the words of the above said persons, he
and his mother Janaki deposited various amounts on
various dates as detailed in the complaint. They also
mentioned the amount deposited, date of deposit, date of
maturity and maturity amount details. In token
acknowledgement of the above said deposit, they have
issued Bonds. But from 15.02.2023, the money deposited
through the Agent Chellammal was neither returned nor
paid any interest. When he contacted the above said
Office, there was no proper reply. Later, he came to know
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
Crl.OP(MD)Nos.16476 of 2023 batch etc.
that they have been cheated. Totally Rs.73.50 Lakhs was
deposited.
4.On the basis of the above said complaint, case was
registered in Crime No.3 of 2023 for the offences
punishable under Sections 406, 420 & 34 of IPC and
Section 5 of the Tamil Nadu Protection of Interests of
Depositors (In Financial Establishments) Act, 1997,
(herein after referred to as 'the Act, 1997') on
20.06.2023. Originally, 11 persons have been shown as
accused. The first accused is Neomax Properties Private
Limited; the second accused is Garlando Properties
Private Limited; the third accused is Transco Properties
Private Limited; Tridas Properties Private Limited has
been arrayed as fourth accused; The fifth accused is
Glowmax Properties Private Limited; All other accused are
individual persons working in various capacities in the
above said companies.
5.The above said FIR was registered, on 20/06/2023.
Investigation was taken up. Pending investigation
process, some of the accused persons were arrested and
some moved anticipatory bail and those applications were
dismissed.
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
Crl.OP(MD)Nos.16476 of 2023 batch etc.
6.During the course of the investigation, steps were
taken by the Investigating Officer to freeze the accounts
maintained by the petitioners in various branches of Bank
as noted in the tabulation.
Crl.OP(MD)No. Party Name Account No. Bank Name
16476 of 2023 C.N.Ilankumaran 1509101156029 Canara Bank
C.N.Raja Chidambaram Madurai
16477 of 2023 Harishitha Hospitals 1509256015968 Canara Bank
Private Limited Madurai.
16478 of 2023 C.N.Raja Chidabaram 1011101055344 Canara Bank
Karthika Devi Madurai.
16479 of 2023 Elathalir 1011101054381 Canara Bank
Madurai.
16482 of 2023 Harshitha Hospitals 1011201013444 Canara Bank
Private Limited Madurai.
16485 of 2023 GS Medical Imagining 120002868209 Canara Bank
Private Limited Madurai.
16486 of 2023 Adanawin Amma Food 1909201002411 Canara Bank
Products Pvt. Limited Madurai.
16489 of 2023 Auro Chits Pvt. Limited 1626115000007378 KVB
Madurai.
16490 of 2023 Karthika Devi 3113201003199 Canara Bank
Madurai.
16493 of 2023 C.N.Ilankumaran 1011101054307 Canara Bank
I.Elamthalir Madurai.
16494 of 2023 Karthika Devi 1509131000142 Canara Bank
Madurai.
16495 of 2023 GS Medical Imaging 120002447589 Canara Bank
Private Limited Chennai.
16496 of 2023 C.N.Illankumaran 1509132000019 Canara Bank
Madurai.
7.The petitioners in Crl.OP(MD)No.16476 of 2023
would say that they are the Directors of the company
called Harshitha Hospitals Private Limited, GS Medical
Imagining Private Limited, M/s.Adanawin Amma Food
Products Private Limited. For the purpose of running the
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
Crl.OP(MD)Nos.16476 of 2023 batch etc.
hospital and allied services, they require Bank account
to be operated on day to day basis. So the above said
account was opened. In the first week of October' 2023
they noticed that account was blocked.
8.As per the information furnished by the Bank,
enquiry reveals that in the notice, dated 04/08/2023, the
first respondent directed the second respondent to freeze
the account in connection with the crime No.3 of 2023.
Along with the notice, they also annexed a list, wherein
these petitioners are shown as 53 and 59, in Annexure II,
these petitioners have no connection with the Neomax
Properties Private Limited or in Crime No.3 of 2023.
9.Crl.OP(MD)No.16477 of 2023:- So far as this
petitioner is concerned, it has been stated in the
petition that this company is not found place in the
notice Annexure in schedule II, dated 04/08/2023. So
according to them, they have to meet out the salary, ESI
and EPF payment, vehicle charges, GST Payment etc.
10.Crl.OP(MD)No.16478 of 2023:- The petitioners are
C.N.Raja Chidambaram and Karthika Devi. The first
petitioner would say that he is also one of the Directors
of the many companies called 'Harshitha Hospitals Private
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
Crl.OP(MD)Nos.16476 of 2023 batch etc.
Limited and GS Medical Imagining Private Limited. The
second petitioner is the Director of M/s.Adanawin Amma
Food Products Private Limited. For the purpose of day
today activities, they are maintaining the above said
bank account. In Annexure II notice, dated 04/08/2023,
The first petitioner shown as 53rd person. The second
petitioner's name is not mentioned.
11.Crl.OP(MD)No.16479 of 2023:- This petitioner is
one of the Directors in M/s.Harshitha Hospitals Private
Limited. They are having overdraft facilities and running
of the account is required for day today affairs of the
hospital. His name is mentioned as 52 in Annexure-II,
dated 04/08/2023.
12.Crl.OP(MD)No.16482 of 2023:- This petitioner is
one and the same as that of Crl.OP(MD)No.16476 of 2023.
The very same grounds have been made like the other
petitions.
13.Crl.OP(MD)No.16485 of 2023:- The petitioner is
M/s.GS Medical Imagining Private Limited. The petitioner
says that they are running diagnostic centres and alleged
medical services. For running the day to day activities,
they are maintaining the account as stated above.
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
Crl.OP(MD)Nos.16476 of 2023 batch etc.
14.Crl.OP(MD)No.16486 of 2023: The petitioner is a
registered company under the Companies Act 2013 and doing
the business of manufacturing and selling of home
products, food products. They are also supplying the food
products to restaurant, hotels, etc. They are running
current account as stated above. They are shown as 61 in
the Annexure notice, dated 08/07/2023.
15.Crl.OP(MD)No.16489 of 2023:- The petitioner is a
Chit company called 'Auro Chits Private Limited. It is
registered under the provisions of the Companies Act
2015. They are having more than 2000 customers. They are
providing service in a proper manner. The petitioners are
also one of the Board of Directors of the company called
'GS Medical Imagining Private Limited'. They are
maintaining bank accounts for their day today affairs.
16.Crl.OP(MD)No.16490 of 2023:- The petitioner is
the sole proprietor of M/s.Adanawin Amma Food Products
Private Limited, Madurai. It is a separate unit from
M/s.Harshitha Hospitals Private Limited. They are
maintaining separate account.
17.Crl.OP(MD)No.16493 of 2023:- The first petitioner
is the Director of the many companies namely Harshita
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
Crl.OP(MD)Nos.16476 of 2023 batch etc.
Hospitals Private Limited ad GS Medical Imaging Private
Limited. The second petitioner is one of the Directors of
Harshita Hospitals Private Limited. The petitioners says
that they are running hospitals, Pharmacies and allied
medical services. For running the day to day activities,
they are maintaining the account as stated above.
18.Crl.OP(MD)No.16494 of 2023:- The petitioner is
the Sole Proprietor of M/s.Adanawin Amma Food Products
Private Limited, Madurai. It is a separate unit away from
M/s.Harshitha Hospitals Private Limited. They are
maintaining separate account.
19.Crl.OP(MD)No.16495 of 2023:- The petitioner is
M/s.GS Medical Imagining Private Limited. The petitioner
says that they are running diagnostic centres and alleged
medical services. For running the day to day activities,
they are maintaining the account as stated above.
20.Crl.OP(MD)No.16496 of 2023:- The petitioner is
the Director of the many companies namely Harshita
Hospitals Private Limited ad GS Medical Imaging Private
Limited. The petitioner says that they are running
hospitals, Pharmacies and allied medical services. For
running the day to day activities, they are maintaining
the account as stated above.
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
Crl.OP(MD)Nos.16476 of 2023 batch etc.
21.Heard both sides.
22.Legality of freezing of the accounts and the
power of the Investigating Officer to take such an
extreme step, are called in question in these matters.
23.Since common questions of law and facts arise in
all these matters, heard in common and common order is
passed.
24.The notice, dated 08/07/2023 read as under:-
“With reference to the above
cited, a case was registered against
NEOMAX PROPERTIES PRIVATE LIMITED, PLOT
No.85, Subramaniapillai Street, SS
Colony Byepass road, Madurai-625016,
its director namely 1.Balasubramaniam,
s/o. Sankarapandi. 2.Kamala Kannan,
S/o.Shanmugam. 3.Veerasakthi
S/o.Duraikannu for the alleged offences
of the cheating Criminal Breach of
Trust committed in the transaction of
deposits collected from the public
under false promise that the company
would provide 6% to 10% interest per
month on the deposit. They have
collected around thousands of core from
the public through various bank
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
Crl.OP(MD)Nos.16476 of 2023 batch etc.
accounts which violates the provision
of above referred section.
2.In connection to the case, it is
informed to the legal department of the
above mentioned banks to freeze the
linked accounts of the accused company,
related parties, and directors. We are
herein attaching a list of all the
parties having PAN No. & AADHAR No.
which are connecting to the
Investigation. The Legal department of
the banks is required to freeze the
Bank accounts of all the parties having
the linked PAN & AADHAR (List Attached
in Annexure-I).
3.All the bank accounts should be
sent in excel format only from the date
of opening of accounts till the last
transaction.
4.Further, the banks are also
informed to provide the core bank
statement which shall contain the
details of the beneficiary such as
date, transaction ID, Account number,
Name of the Bank, IFSC Code, and Amount
of transaction for us to further
investigate in this matter.
5.The reply should be sent through
our office mail ID &
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
Crl.OP(MD)Nos.16476 of 2023 batch etc.
[email protected] & sphorseeow@
tn.govt.in in order to maintain
safely.”
25.By following the above said note, by the letter,
dated 04/08/2023, request was made to the independent
banks to freeze the accounts along with the communication
or notice as the case may be. Two Annexures are attached
26.In Annexure-I, details about the Neomax
properties other than medical and educational
institutions are mentioned. Wherein we find 62 items are
mentioned.
27.In Annexure-II details about the independent bank
and PAN number etc., were given, which contains 75 items.
28.In pursuance of the above said request, accounts
were freezed by the respective Banks.
29.As mentioned above, the legality is called in
question. We need not go into the individual cases.
30.First we will take up the legal issue raised by
the petitioners and answer.
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
Crl.OP(MD)Nos.16476 of 2023 batch etc.
31.On the side of the petitioners, the following
judgments are produced;-
1.R.Chandrasekar Vs. Inspector of
Police, fair Land Police Station, Salem
and another (2002(5)CTC 598;-
2.Padmini Vs. The Inspector of Police
(2008(3)CTC 657;
3.Mrs.B.Kavitha Vs. The Inspector of
Police, K-4, Anna Nagar Police Station,
Chennai and another (Crl.OP(MD)No.14824 of
2019, dated 11/06/2019);
4.Ratan Babulan Lath Vs. State of
Karnataka (2021 SCC OnLine SC 875);
5.M/s.Jermyn Capital LLC Dubai Vs.
Central Bureau of Investigation and others
(2023 LiveLaw (SC) 412).
32.On the side of the State, the following two
judgements are cited.
1.State of Maharashtra Vs. Tapas
D.Neogy (1999)7 SCC 685; and
2.Teesta Atul Setalvad Vs. State of
Gujarat (2018)2 SCC 372).
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
Crl.OP(MD)Nos.16476 of 2023 batch etc.
33.We will take up the above judgments at the
relevant point of time.
34.The relevant provisions are required to be
extracted for better appreciation.
35.Section 102 of the Criminal Procedure Code reads
as under:-
“102.Power of the police officer
to seize certain property.-(1)Any
police officer may seize any property
which may be alleged or suspected to
have been stolen, or which may be found
under circumstances which create
suspicion of the commission of any
offence.
(2)Such police officer, if
subordinate to the office in charge of
a police station, shall forthwith
report the seizure to that officer.
(3)Every police officer acting
under sub-section (1) shall forthwith
report the seizure to the Magistrate
having jurisdiction and where the
property seized is such that it cannot
be conveniently transported to the
Court or where there is difficulty in
securing proper accommodation for the
custody of such property, or where the
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
Crl.OP(MD)Nos.16476 of 2023 batch etc.
continued retention of the property in
police custody of such property may not
be considered necessary for the purpose
of investigation, he may give custody
thereof to any person on his executing
a bond undertaking to produce the
property before the Court as and when
required and to give effect to the
further orders of the Court as to the
disposal of the same.
Provided that where the property
seized under sub-section 91) is subject
to speedy and natural decay and if the
person entitled to the possession of
such property is unknown or absent and
the value of such property is less than
five hundred rupees it may forthwith be
sold by auction under the orders of the
Superintendent of Police and the
provisions of section 457 and 458
shall, as nearly as may be practicable,
apply to the net proceeds of such
sale.”
DEFINITION OF PROPERTY
36.The word 'any property' mentioned in section 102
Cr.P.C came for up for consideration on many times in
many places. To conclude the controversy, the Hon'ble
Supreme Court resolved the same in the judgment reported
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
Crl.OP(MD)Nos.16476 of 2023 batch etc.
in Nevada Properties Private Limited Vs. State of
Maharashtra and others (AIR-2019-SC-4554), answered the
reference that 'any property' in section 102 Cr.P.C will
cover only movable properties and not the immovable
properties.
37.Now the Bank account maintained by any person
also clarified that it fits under the definition of
'property' mentioned in section 102 Cr.P.C.
38.In view of the confirmation of the Hon'ble
Supreme Court in the above said reference, we need not
go into those judgments, which deals about the issue as
to whether the 'bank account' deemed to be the property.
Now that matter has been resolved, no more discussion is
required.
39.The condition for invoking section 102 Cr.P.C is
that those properties might have have been found in
suspicious circumstances, which created as suspicion of
commission of any offence. The word 'any offence' does
not require any definition or interpretation as the case
may be.
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
Crl.OP(MD)Nos.16476 of 2023 batch etc.
40.According to the learned Additional Public
Prosecutor, the accounts that are maintained by these
petitioners contain money, which is suspected to be
involved in the commission of the offence mentioned in
the Crime No.3 of 2023 as well as the alteration report
filed in this matter including include the offence under
sections 3 and 4 of the BUDS Act. He would further
submits that when reasonable suspicion arises in the mind
of the Investigating Officer, he is well within his power
to make a request to freeze the account. According to
him, not only the account of the accused, but also the
third parties, when reasonable suspicion occurs. So
according to him, the letter of request made by the
Investigating Officer to freeze the account is well
founded.
41.When the legality of the action is challenged,
justification must come from the State. Only for that
purpose, I take up the explanation of the learned
Additional Public Prosecutor at the first instance,
before going into the arguments raised by the
petitioners.
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
Crl.OP(MD)Nos.16476 of 2023 batch etc.
INTIMATION TO THE DESIGNATED COURT
42.The next requirement of law is that sub-section 3
must be properly complied. According to the learned
Additional Public Prosecutor, proper information was sent
to the concerned jurisdictional court in this regard.
43.The discovery of the offence should be a sequel
to the discovery of the property. According to the
learned Senior counsel, here the discovery of the offence
comes first and property later. So according to him,
section 102 Cr.P.C does not apply.
44.For the above said proposition of law, he would
also rely upon the judgment of this Court in the case of
R.Chandrasekar Vs. Inspector of Police, Fair Land Police
Station, Salem and another (2002(5)CTC 598). But this
point is also dealt by the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the
judgment reported in the case of Nevada Properties
Private Limited Vs. State of Maharashtra and others,
(AIR-2019-SC-4554) in para 8 in an elaborate manner.
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
Crl.OP(MD)Nos.16476 of 2023 batch etc.
PRIOR NOTICE TO ACCOUNT HOLDERS
45.With regard to the notice to the Account Holder,
the learned Senior counsel appearing for the petitioners
would rely upon the judgment of this court in the case of
Ms.B.Kavitha Vs. The Inspector of Police, K-4, Anna Nagar
Police Station, Chennai and another (Crl.OP(MD)No.14824
of 2019, dated 11/06/2019) and Padmini Vs. The Inspector
of Police (2008(3) CTC 657).
46.Per contra, the learned Additional Public
Prosecutor would submit that it is no more good law in
view of the statement of law of the Hon'ble Supreme Court
in the judgment reported in the case of Teesta Atul
Setalvad Vs. State of Gujarat [(2018)2 SCC 372].
47.In view of the statement of law by the Hon'ble
Supreme Court, we cannot fall back upon the decisions
cited by the petitioners.
MATERIALS TO INVOKE SECTION 102 CR.P.C.
48.The important factor, which must be answered by
this court is as to whether the present situation is
sufficient enough to create suspicion in the mind of the
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
Crl.OP(MD)Nos.16476 of 2023 batch etc.
Investigating Officer that these petitioners account are
also involved in the commission of the crime.
49.Again we have to go to the judgment of Nevada
Properties Private Limited Vs. State of Maharashtra and
others (AIR-2019 SC 4554).
...Equally important, for the
purpose of Criminal Appeal arising out
of interpretation is the scope and
object of Section 102 of the Code,
which is to help and assist
investigation and to enable the police
officer to collect and collate evidence
to be produced to prove the charge
complained of and set up in the charge
sheet. The Section is a part of the
provisions concerning investigation
undertaken by the police officer. After
the charge sheet is filed, the
prosecution leads and produces evidence
to secure conviction. Section 102 is
not, per se, an enabling provision by
which the police officer acts to seize
the property to do justice and to hand
over the property to a person whom the
police officer feels is the rightful
and true owner. This is clear from the
objective behind Section 102, use of
the words in the Section and the scope
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
Crl.OP(MD)Nos.16476 of 2023 batch etc.
and ambit of the power conferred on the
Criminal Court vide Sections
451 to 459 of the Code. The expression
‘circumstances which create suspicion
of the commission of any offence’
in Section 102 does not refer to a firm
opinion or an adjudication/finding by a
police officer to ascertain whether or
not ‘any property’ is required to be
seized. The word ‘suspicion’ is a
weaker and a broader expression than
‘reasonable belief’ or ‘satisfaction’.
The police officer is an investigator
and not an adjudicator or a decision
maker. This is the reason why the
Ordinance was enacted to deal with
attachment of money and immovable
properties in cases of scheduled
offences. Criminal Appeal arising out
of In case and if we allow the police
officer to ‘seize’ immovable property
on a mere ‘suspicion of the commission
of any offence’, it would mean and
imply giving a drastic and extreme
power to dispossess etc. to the police
officer on a mere conjecture and
surmise, that is, on suspicion, which
has hitherto not been exercised. We
have hardly come across any case where
immovable property was seized vide an
attachment order that was treated as a
seizure order by police officer
under Section 102 of the Code.”
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
Crl.OP(MD)Nos.16476 of 2023 batch etc.
50.So this observation by the Hon'ble Supreme Court
by extracting the High Court order also makes very clear
the position of the persons whose account was freezed.
The petitioners can approach the concerned trial court by
seeking defreezing of the account if it is not found
involved. So the right of the petitioners is not taken
away completely. Their right and position is a secured
one, which can be exercised by them at the relevant point
of time.
51.Here as mentioned above, during the course of
hearing of the anticipatory bail petitions and the writ
petitions, it was submitted by the State and victims
before this court that various fictitious companies were
created by the accused and money was siphoned off to
various accounts.
52.It is also admitted on the side of the accused in
the writ petitions that they are running several
hospitals, schools, etc, for the purpose of enhancing the
value of the money deposited. When such candid admission
was made by the petitioner in WP(MD)Nos.18991 to 18995 of
2023 who are the accused, naturally the reasonable
suspicion had arisen in the mind of the Investigating
Officer that money were also siphoned off to the accounts
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
Crl.OP(MD)Nos.16476 of 2023 batch etc.
maintained by the petitioners. The relevant portion is
extracted as under:-
“2.I submit that NEOMAX GROUP is a
Group of companies doing Real Estate
Business. The object of Neomax
Properties Limited is to carry on
business of real estate and property
developers. We buy Land in acres take
DTCP (Directorate of Town and Country
Planning) approval, from Lay-out
comprising of minimum 1000 plots and
sell the plots to customers. To add
value and to ensure safety to the
buyers we construct Hotel, Petrol Bunk,
School, College and Hospital inside the
Lay-out. NEOMAX GROUP have constructed
a School, Catering College, 100 Bedded
Hospital, Drive-inn Restaurant and
Petrol Bunk all inside Virudhunagar
Project.”
So it cannot be stated that there is no ground for the
investigating Officer to take this extreme step. Whether
the money has been siphoned off from the deposits to the
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
Crl.OP(MD)Nos.16476 of 2023 batch etc.
accounts are all matters for thorough investigation. It
is nothing, but herculean task for the investigating
Officer to scrutinize all the accounts in a detailed
manner. From the case projected before me in the
anticipatory bail petitions and the writ petitions, I am
of the considered view that there are reasonable
apprehension in the mind of the Investigating Officer in
this regard. That cannot be doubted at this stage.
53.So the contention on the part of the learned
Senior counsel that section 102 Cr.P.C ought not to have
been invoked or there is no power for the investigating
officer cannot be accepted at all.
54.Mr.T.Lajapathy Roy, the learned Senior counsel
appearing for one of the petitioners would rely upon the
judgment of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of
M/s.Jermyn Capitals LLC Dubai Vs. Central Bureau of
Investigation and others (2023 Livelaw (SC) 412).
55.He would submit that freezing of the account of
the independent and unconnected persons with the crime is
not legal. But the factual issue in that case is very
different. Here as noted above, in WP(MD)Nos.18991 to
18995 of 2023, it was candidly admitted that they are
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
Crl.OP(MD)Nos.16476 of 2023 batch etc.
running several companies for raising value of the money.
When such being the candid admission, the contention of
the petitioners cannot be accepted that they are totally
unconnected with the crime No.3 of 2023.
56.As mentioned above, thorough investigation is
required in all the Bank transactions. In the case
submitted by the learned Senior counsel for the
petitioner, the Hon'ble Supreme court has dealt the
matter in totally different set of facts not akin to the
Crime No.3 of 2023. In that case, account of the
petitioner was seized on the ground that he was having
business dealings with the accused company. But here, it
is not that position. The petitioner in Crl.OP(MD)No.
16489 of 2023 is one of the accused in Crime No.3 of
2023.
57.When that was clarified by the learned Additional
Public Prosecutor, Mr.T.Lajapathi Roy, learned Senior
counsel would submit that if it is so, only his private
account can be freezed and not the company account, which
is totally unconnected with the case in Crime No.3 of
2023. But answer to this argument is, as mentioned above.
It requires no repetition.
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
Crl.OP(MD)Nos.16476 of 2023 batch etc.
58.For more clarity, we can go through the judgment
of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of Teesta Atul
Setalvad Vs. State of Gujarat [(2018)2 SCC 372)]. Before
that, a point, which was raised by me at the time of
argument to the learned Additional Public Prosecutor is
relevant. This court put a question to the learned
Additional Public Prosecutor that no doubt that they can
seize the tainted money in the account, but whether they
are competent to freeze the entire accounts. For which,
the learned Additional Public Prosecutor would submit
that they are well within the power. But the point here
is, so far, the Investigating Officer is not in a
position to identify or ascertain or quantify the money
deposited in the respective accounts with reference to
the Crime No.3 of 2023. So as noted above it is a
Herculean task. The answer lies in Teesta Atul Setalvad's
case.
“48.True it is that the learned
Government Public Prosecutor rightly
concedes against perennial freezing of
accounts; however, it is for the
investigating agency, probably on
conclusion of the investigation to
determine the extent of the accounts
tainted with crime and to De-freeze
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
Crl.OP(MD)Nos.16476 of 2023 batch etc.
the rest, if at all such Defreezing is
warranted in the facts and
circumstances of the case.”
59.From the above said observation, it is the duty
of the petitioners, during the course of the
investigation to give all the details of the banking
transactions and cooperate with them to complete the
process of investigation.
60.On this aspect, if ultimately found to be in
favour of the petitioners, they can also very well take
efforts to de-freeze the above. As mentioned above, their
right is not foreclosed forever.
TANPID ACT AND CRIMINAL PROCEDURE CODE
61.Mr.T.Lajapathi Roy, learned Senior counsel
appearing for one of the petitioners would submit that
section 5 of the TANPID Act stipulates that the
designated court shall regulate the process of attachment
etc. So invoking of section 102 Cr.P.C is totally out of
place and cannot be sustained. According to him, the
competent authority is the Government. It is per se
illegal, which must be set aside by this court.
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
Crl.OP(MD)Nos.16476 of 2023 batch etc.
62.So the objection made by the petitioners must be
addressed. The learned Additional Public Prosecutor would
submit that no specific rules or procedures are made
under the provisions of the Act to make freezing of
accounts. According to him, the general Law namely the
Criminal Procedure Code must take care of the situation.
63.Now let us take the point. Section 3 of TANPID
Act reads as under:-
“3.Attachment of properties on default
of return of deposits.-Notwithstanding
anything contained in any other law for the
time being in force,-
(i)where upon complaints received from
a number of depositors, that any Financial
Establishment defaults the return of
deposits after maturity, or fails to pay
interest on deposit or fails to provide the
service for which deposit has been made, or
(ii)where the Government have reason to
believe that any financial establishment is
acting in a calculated manner with an
intention to defraud the depositors,
and if the Government is satisfied that such
Financial Establishment is not likely to
return the deposits or to make payment of
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
Crl.OP(MD)Nos.16476 of 2023 batch etc.
interest or to provide the service, the
Government may, in order to protect the
interest of the depositors of such Financial
Establishment, pass an ad-interim order
attaching the money or other property
alleged to have been procured either in the
name of the Financial Establishment or in
the name of any other person from and out of
the deposits collected by the Financial
Establishment, or if it transpires that such
money or other property is not available for
attachment or not sufficient for repayment
of the deposits, such other property of the
said Financial Establishment or the
promoter, partner, director, manager or
member of the said Financial Establishment
or a person who has borrowed money from the
Financial Establishment to the extent of his
default or, such other properties of that
person in whose name properties were
purchased from and out of the deposits
collected by the Financial Establishment, as
the Government may think fit, and transfer
the control over the said money or property
to the Competent Authority."
64.Reading of the Section does indicate that upon a
complaint received from the depositors or on the own
motion the Government, if it has reason to believe that
the financial establishment is acting in a manner with
the intention to defraud the depositors, then can make an
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
Crl.OP(MD)Nos.16476 of 2023 batch etc.
order of ad-interim attachment of money or other property
which fit into the category of the definition. Order can
be passed by the Government on being satisfied that
financial establishment is not likely to return the
deposits. The twin conditions must be satisfied before
ordering the order of attachment.
65.Further course of action mentioned in the Act,
for managing the properties, competent persons are
appointed by the Government to manage the properties as
per Section 4 of the Act. Within 30 days from the order
of attachment, the competent authority must approach the
designated Court under Section 7 of the Act to make the
attachment, made absolute. What sort of procedure to be
adopted by the designated Court is clearly set out in
section 7 of the Act. Powers are given to the designated
Court to sell the property for the purpose of
distributing the proceeds among the depositors.
66.Reading of these provisions, it is seen that
Chapter II is independent of Chapter III. Chapter IV of
the Act deals about the Special Court procedures, rights
is also given to the persons whose properties are
attached to apply Special Court for giving security in
lieu of the attachment.
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
Crl.OP(MD)Nos.16476 of 2023 batch etc.
67.Further, the reading of the provision makes the
position clear that what has been prescribed under the
provisions of the Act is only in relation to the
attachment, sale of the properties and the distribution
of the proceeds, the trial of the offence, etc. It is
nothing to do with the investigation to be undertaken by
the competent Officers. In respect of the investigation,
it is seen that a suggestion was made by this court while
hearing a similar petition in Anubhav Plantation's case
to create a separate wing for the purpose of carrying the
investigation, etc. In response to this direction only, a
separate Wing in the police Department called 'Economic
Offence Wing' is created and separate wings are
functioning in various parts of the State. It is also
learnt that the Director General of Police has issued a
circular which gives power to the concerned Wings to
investigate Economics Offences, if the subject matter of
the offence alleged is more than three Crores. They are
taking the investigation to investigate the offences
punishable under section 5 of the Act. No prescribed
procedure is mentioned in special enactment. Naturally
we have to fall back upon the general law namely Criminal
Procedure Code.
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
Crl.OP(MD)Nos.16476 of 2023 batch etc.
68.For more clarity we will go to the judgment of
the Hon'ble Supreme Court. When similar situation arose,
the Hon'ble Supreme Court made observation in the case of
Dhanraj N Asawani Vs. Amarjeet Singh Mohinder Singh Basi
and others in Criminal Appeal No.2093 of 2023, dated
25/07/2023. The following observation are relevant for
our consideration as the case may be.
“15.Section 4 of the CrPC provides
that all offences under the IPC shall be
investigated, inquired, and tried
according to the provisions of the CrPC.
Section 4(2) structures the application
of the CrPC in situations where a special
procedure is prescribed under any special
enactment. (Punjab Vs. Balbir Singh
(1994)3 SCC 299) Section 4 is extracted
below:
4.Trial of offences under the Indian
Penal Code and other laws. — (1) All
offences under the Indian Penal Code (45
of 1860) shall be investigated, inquired
into, tried, and otherwise dealt with
according to the provisions hereinafter
contained.
(2) All offences under any other law
shall be investigated, inquired into,
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
Crl.OP(MD)Nos.16476 of 2023 batch etc.
tried, and otherwise dealt with according
to the same provisions, but subject to
any enactment for the time being in force
regulating the manner or place of
investigating, inquiring into, trying or
otherwise dealing with such offences.
16.Section 4(2) lays down that the
provisions of the CrPC shall apply to all
offences under any other law apart from
the IPC. However, the application of the
CrPC will be excluded only where a
special law prescribes special procedures
to deal with the investigation, inquiry,
or the trial of the special offence. For
instance, in Mirza Iqbal Hussain v. State
of Uttar Pradesh, (1982)3 SCC 516} this Court
was called upon to determine whether the
trial court had jurisdiction to pass an
order of confiscation under the
Prevention of Corruption Act, 1947. This
Court held that the provisions of the
CrPC would apply in full force because
the Prevention of Corruption Act, 1947
did not provide for confiscation or
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
Crl.OP(MD)Nos.16476 of 2023 batch etc.
prescribed any mode by which an order of
confiscation could be made. Therefore, it
was held that a court trying an offence
under the Prevention of Corruption Act,
1947 was empowered to pass an order of
confiscation in view of Section 452 of
the CrPC. In determining whether a
special procedure will override the
general procedure laid down under the
CrPC, the courts have to ascertain
whether the special law excludes, either
specifically or by necessary implication,
the application of the provisions of the
CrPC.
17.The CrPC provides the method for
conducting investigation, inquiry, and
trial with the ultimate objective of
determining the guilt of the accused in
terms of the substantive law. The
criminal proceedings kick in when the
information of the commission of an
offence is provided to the police or the
magistrate. Section 154 of the CrPC
details the procedure for recording the
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
Crl.OP(MD)Nos.16476 of 2023 batch etc.
first information in relation to the
commission of a cognizable offence. It
provides that any information relating to
the commission of a cognizable offence if
given orally to an officer in charge of a
police station shall be reduced into
writing by them or under their direction.
The information provided by the informant
is known as the FIR. (T.TAntony Vs. State
of Kerala (2001)6 SCC 181)”
69.Though the judgment was pronounced in the context
of the confiscation order to be passed by the Special
Court under the provisions of Corruption Act, 1988, the
principle that has been laid down is that if the special
procedures prescribed in the Special Act with regard to
the investigation, enquiry or trial process, then only
the provisions of Criminal Procedure Code will be
excluded. The next test in this regard is whether the
Special Act either specifically or by necessary
implication excludes the provision of the Criminal
Procedure Code.
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
Crl.OP(MD)Nos.16476 of 2023 batch etc.
70.Chapter V of the Act may be taken. Section 14 of
the TNPID Act reads as under:-
“14.Act to override other laws.-
Save as otherwise provided in this Act,
the provisions of this Act shall have
effect notwithstanding anything
inconsistent therewith contained in any
other law for the time being in force or
any custom or usage or any instrument
having effect by virtue of any such
law.”
71.So this makes the position very clear that the
Act has overriding effect only in respect of provisions,
which are found to be inconsistent with the other Acts.
Inconsistency between the Special Act and the Criminal
Procedure Code with regard to the investigation, enquiry,
etc., by the police, we find absolutely, nothing. Even
the trial by the Special Court under the provision of the
Act must be taken by following the procedure prescribed
in the Criminal Procedure Code. So the State Police is
competent to make investigation, enquiry and file the
final report. Only with regard to the attachment of the
property, specific procedures are set out in the Act. And
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
Crl.OP(MD)Nos.16476 of 2023 batch etc.
so far as Criminal Procedure Code is concerned, for the
provision to the attachment of the property, except
section 145 Cr.P.C and the proclamation of absconding
accused, we find no other provisions. So the attachment
procedures will have overriding effect upon the Criminal
Procedure Code.
72.The power is very well available to the officers
namely EOW Officers to make out investigation, search,
etc. No exception can be taken over the power.
73.If the argument of the Senior Counsel for one of
the petitioners is taken on its face value, then it is to
be seen that he wants to equate the power of the
Government under section 3 of the Act, with that of the
power of the investigating officers to seize, etc.
74.So the question which arises for consideration is
whether or not it is. In my considered view it is not.
Seizure and attachment are different operating in
different fields. Seizure by the Investigating Officers
comes first, followed by attachment by the Government.
75.Investigating Officer must supply the material to
the Government for the purpose of ascertaining the money,
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
Crl.OP(MD)Nos.16476 of 2023 batch etc.
which fit into the category mentioned in Section 3 of the
Act for the purpose of passing the order of attachment or
final orders as mentioned above by the designated Court.
So the duty and purpose of the officer is only
supplementary or in aid, leading the Government to pass
order under section 3 of the Act. Properties here have
been declared to be only movable properties and certainly
not immovable properties.
76.The power of the police officers, as mentioned
above, is independent from the power of the Government to
pass an order of attachment as mentioned above. The
recommendation is usually made by the Officers to
Government to pass an order of attachment.
77.It is not mandatory for the Government to pass
attachment order in all the cases, in respect of
properties seized by the Investigating Officer. As
stated above conditions must be satisfied before passing
the order by the Government. The properties seized must
be remanded to the Court which tries the cases. The
property so seized are subject to the provisions under
section 451 Cr.P.C and at the final disposal, under
section 452 Cr.P.C etc., if not attracted under section 3
of TANPID Act. So far attached properties are concerned,
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
Crl.OP(MD)Nos.16476 of 2023 batch etc.
special procedures have been set out for sale,
distribution of proceeds etc.
78.So the discussion made so far makes the position
very clear that power of attachment by the Government is
independent from the power of the police officers to
seize the properties in connection with the crime. On the
intimation of the Investigating Officers not only the
seized properties, but also other properties including
immovable properties can be attached. So the contention
on the part of the petitioners that the power of seizure
by the Investigating Officer must be equated with that of
the power of the Government to pass an order of
attachment is not acceptable. If such a contention is
accepted, then the very purpose of investigation will be
defeated.
79.Mr.T.Lajapathi Roy, learned Senior counsel would
rely upon the judgment of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in
the case of Ratan Babulal Lath Vs. State of Karnataka
(2021 SCC OnLine SC 875). There was a case under section
8 of the Prevention of Corruption Act was the subject
matter for consideration. The Hon'ble Supreme Court
stated that the Prevention of Corruption Act is a Code by
itself. So, action under section 102 Cr.P.C is illegal.
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
Crl.OP(MD)Nos.16476 of 2023 batch etc.
He wants to draw analogy of TNPID Act to Prevention of
Corruption Act, 1988.
80.To this argument, the learned Additional Public
Prosecutor would submit that as noted above, no procedure
has been set out in the TNPID Act and so the Criminal
Procedure Code will take of the situation.
81.I have extracted the relevant portion in the
opening para of the discussion, which requires no
repetition. According to him, only the Government can
take order or ad-interim attachment, which must be
followed by the management of the property by the
competent authority.
82.Section 3 of the Act reads about the power of the
Government. The question, which arises for consideration
is whether the power of the Investigating Officer to take
action under section 102 Cr.P.C is barred under section 3
of the TNPID Act.
83.We can take the guideline from the word used in
section 3 of TNPID Act. Section 3 falls in Chapter II.
Section 3 deals with the attachment of the properties,
management of the properties by appointing a competent
person.
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
Crl.OP(MD)Nos.16476 of 2023 batch etc.
84.Chapter III deals about penalty to be imposed
upon the defaulter. Chapter III section 5A deals about
the compounding of the offence. Chapter IV deals about
the establishment of Special Court, procedure, etc. The
opening sentence in Chapter III reads as follows
'notwithstanding'.
85.Combined reading of the the above section makes
the position clear that both chapters are independent of
each other, not dependent. Registration of case under
section 5 of the TNPID Act is not required for ordering
of attachment of the property by the Government and
appointment of the competent person to administer the
properties. So irrespective of registration of offence,
power can be exercised by the Government. So, I am of the
considered view that the said power of the Government is
independent. The Investigating Officer to freeze the
account for the purpose of ascertaining the actual money
deposited in connection with the Crime No.3 of 2023, the
purpose is entirely different.
86.So I am of the considered view that the power of
the Investigation Officer under section 102 Cr.P.C is
independent from the power of the Government.
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
Crl.OP(MD)Nos.16476 of 2023 batch etc.
87.No doubt as mentioned above, after ascertaining
the actual money involved in the Crime No.3 of 2023 can
be made attachment, seizure etc. But for the purpose of
facilitating the investigation, to ascertain the actual
amount involved in the accounts, I am of the considered
view that the power can be exercised by the Investigating
Officer. Any other conclusion will, as mentioned, by the
Hon'ble Supreme Court in Teesta Atul Setalvad's case will
amount to public justice rather than serving the ends of
justice. I will reproduce the relevant para as detailed
under:-
“Therefore, it is insignificant at
this stage, when the investigation has
progressed to a material point, to
ponder around the question as to whether
the act of freezing the accounts was a
sequel to crime or the crime was
detected later. If the arguments to that
effect advanced by the learned Counsel
for the Petitioners is accepted at this
stage, it would advance the public
injustice rather than serving the ends
of justice. De-freezing accounts on the
basis of such arguments, nay paralyze
the investigation, which cannot be
approved as an act 'In the Interest of
Justice.'
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
Crl.OP(MD)Nos.16476 of 2023 batch etc.
88.Nothing more is required to be stated in this
regard before concluding the discussion. At the same
time, difficulties that are faced by the petitioners as
mentioned above for running the day today affairs of the
companies must also be taken care. Several employees and
public interests are also in the establishments. So, I
am of the considered view that a direction may be issued
to the Investigating Officer to take up the issue of
ascertaining the actual money involved in the accounts
immediately and conclude the same within a period of two
months from the date of receipt of a copy of this order.
Depending upon the outcome of enquiry, further action may
be taken by both.
89.With the above said direction, all the criminal
original petitions are dismissed. Consequently, connected
Miscellaneous Petitions are closed.
21/11/2023
Index:Yes/No
Internet:Yes/No
er
Note: Issue order copy on 22/11/2023
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
Crl.OP(MD)Nos.16476 of 2023 batch etc.
To,
1.The Inspector of Police,
Economic Offence Wing,
Madurai.
2.The Branch Manager,
Canara Bank,
Madurai East Veli Branch,
St.Mary's Building,
East Veli Street,
Maurai-625 001.
3.The Competent Authority and
District Revenue Officer,
Madurai District.
4.The Inspector of Police,
Economic Offence Wing,
Thapalthanthi Nagar Extension,
Park Town,
Madurai.
5.The Manager,
Karur Vysya Bank Ltd., (Main Branch)
67-68-, T.P.K. Road,
Near Agrini Apartments,
Palanganatham,
Madurai-625 003.
6.The Branch Manager,
Canara Bank,
New:22, Old 26, Duraisamy Road,
T.Nagar,
Chennai-600 017.
7.The Additional Public Prosecutor,
Madurai Bench of Madras High Court,
Madurai.
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
Crl.OP(MD)Nos.16476 of 2023 batch etc.
G.ILANGOVAN, J
er
Crl.OP(MD)Nos.16476 to 16479,
16482, 16485, 16486, 16489,
16490, 16493 to 16496 of 2023
21/11/2023
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
Crl.OP(MD)Nos.16476 of 2023 batch etc.
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
