Rajasthan High Court
Deependra Singh Rathore S/O ... vs State Of Rajasthan on 18 July, 2022
Bench: Birendra Kumar
HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE FOR RAJASTHAN
BENCH AT JAIPUR
S.B. Criminal Miscellaneous (Petition) No. 6099/2022
1. Deependra Singh Rathore S/o Surendra Singh Rathore,
R/o 180- 181, Tara Nagar - A, Jhotwara, Jaipur.
2. Galaxy Mining Pvt. Ltd., Through Its Director Deependra
Singh Rathore, Having Its Registered Office At 301,302,
Ganga Heights, Bapu Nagar, Tonk Road, Jaipur
3. Galaxy Mining And Royalties Ltd., Through Its Director
Deependra Singh Rathore, Having Its Registered Office At
301,302, Ganga Heights, Bapu Nagar, Tonk Road, Jaipur
4. M/s Dsr Infra, Through Its Proprietor Deependra Singh
Rathore, Having Its Registered Office At 32, Tara Nagar,
Near Central Academy School, Jhotwara, Jaipur
----Petitioners
Versus
State Of Rajasthan, Through P.p.
----Respondent
For Petitioner(s) : Mr. Swadeep Singh Hora, Adv.
For Respondent(s) : Mr. Laxman Meena, Public Prosecutor
HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE BIRENDRA KUMAR
Order
18/07/2022
Heard learned counsel for the parties.
In this petition under Section 482 Cr.P.C., the petitioners
have challenged the correctness of order dated 24/05/2022,
whereby the learned Special Judge Prevention of Corruption Act,
Jaipur Metropolitan No. 2 has refused the prayer of the petitioners
under Section 457 Cr.P.C. to release cash amount of Rs.
3,62,11,160/- which was seized in connection with FIR No.
123/2022.
The case and claim of the petitioners is that none of the
petitioners are accused in FIR No. 123/2022 nor the houses No.
(2 of 3) [CRLMP-6099/2022]
180 and 181 belong to any of the accused of the aforesaid FIR
rather the petitioner No. 1 is exclusive owner thereof. The
petitioners No. 2 & 3 are private limited companies engaged in
business of mining and collection of royalties. The petitioner No. 4
M/s DSR Infra is under proprietorship of petitioner No. 1 and is
engaged in business of toll collection and getting commission on
that from the competent authority. Petitioner No. 1 is Director of
the aforesaid two companies. The aforesaid two houses were
searched on suspicion for the reason that father of petitioner No. 1
is an accused in FIR No. 123/2022 registered under Section 7 and
7A of the Prevention of Corruption Act.
Contention is that at the time of seizure, cash voucher of
petitioners No. 2 & 3 was also seized. Evidently, the two
companies had collected the cash as royalty and the same was
lying from 31/03/2022 which would be evident from the certificate
of the auditors of two companies.
Contention is that all the household articles including cash
and ornaments seized by the police belong to the petitioners and
not to the accused persons of the aforesaid FIR. The father of the
petitioner No. 1 resides separately in House No. 32, Tara Nagar,
Jhotwara, Jaipur and not in house No. 180 and 181.
Learned counsel for the petitioners has relied on the
judgment of the Hon'ble Karnataka High Court in Wellworth
Software Pvt. Ltd. and Ors. vs. CBI/ACB, Bangaluru passed
in Criminal Petition Nos. 687 and 693 of 2021 decided on
04/03/2021.
In identical circumstances, the Hon'ble Karnataka High Court
relying on the judgment of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in
Sunderbhai Ambalal Desai vs. State of Gujarat reported in
(3 of 3) [CRLMP-6099/2022]
(2002) 10 SCC 283, set aside the order of refusal of release of
cash passed by the court below and ordered the release of cash in
favour of the claimants/petitioners one of them was a company,
on execution of surety bond. The order of the High Court was
challenged before the Hon'ble Supreme Court in Special Leave to
Appeal (Cri.) No. 8399-8400/2021 titled as Central Bureau of
Investigation vs. Wellworth Software Pvt. Ltd. vide order dated
05/04/2022. The Hon'ble Supreme Court declined to interfere with
the order of the High Court.
Learned State-respondents has opposed the prayer of the
petitioners. However, does not dispute that no fruitful purpose
would be served during trial if the cash is continued to be in
seizure, rather the business of the companies would have
hampered in absence of the cash aforesaid.
Considering the bonafide claim of the petitioners on the
seized cash as well as the supporting documents of TDS etc.
disclosing financial capacity of the petitioners, there is no reason
to withhold the cash.
In the result, the impugned order is hereby quashed and it is
directed that the seized cash of Rs. 3,62,11,160/- be released in
favour of the petitioners through petitioner No. 1 on execution of
indemnity bond for the equal amount alongwith two sureties of the
like amount to the satisfaction of the court below.
Accordingly, this petition stands allowed.
Pending application, if any, stands disposed of.
(BIRENDRA KUMAR),J
ANIL SHARMA /56
Powered by TCPDF (www.tcpdf.org)
