Karnataka High Court
M/S Mahi Enterprises vs State By on 25 March, 2026
Author: M.Nagaprasanna
Bench: M.Nagaprasanna
1
Reserved on :05.02.2026
Pronounced on : 25.03.2026
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU
DATED THIS THE 25TH DAY OF MARCH, 2026
BEFORE
THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE M. NAGAPRASANNA
CRIMINAL PETITION No.1008 OF 2025
C/W
CRIMINAL PETITION No.1022 OF 2025
IN CRIMINAL PETITION No.1008 OF 2025
BETWEEN:
M/S. MAHI ENTERPRISES
REPRESENTED BY ITS PROPRIETOR,
MR.PARIKH BHAVIK,
S/O MR. LALITH BHAI,
AGED ABOUT 23 YEARS,
R/O NO.9, RAVINIKETAN SOCIETY,
LAST BUS STOP, MEGHANI NAGAR,
AHMEDABAD CITY CIVIL HOSPITAL,
GUJARAT - 380 016.
... PETITIONER
(BY SRI BHARATH KUMAR V., ADVOCATE)
AND:
1. STATE BY
CENTRAL CEN POLICE STATION,
2
CENTRAL DIVISION,
BENGALURU.
REPRESENTED BY
STATE PUBLIC PROSECUTOR,
HON'BLE HIGH COURT OF KARNATKA,
DR.AMBEDKAR VEEDHI,
BENGALURU - 560 001.
2. M/S.CHANDRU AND CO.,
REPRESENTED BY MR. HEMANTH SHEKHAR
NO. 12/4, NEHRU NAGAR,
RAILWAY PARALLEL ROAD,
NEAR SHESHADRIPURAM CIRCLE,
BENGALURU - 20.
... RESPONDENTS
(BY SRI K.NAGESHWARAPPA, HCGP FOR R-1;
SRI K.B.K.SWAMY, ADVOCATE FOR R-2)
THIS CRIMINAL PETITION IS FILED UNDER SECTION 482 OF
CR.P.C., PRAYING TO 1.QUASH THE ORDER DATED 18.05.2022
PASSED BY THE HON'BLE I A.C.M.M BENGALURU IN MATTER
BEARING CR.NO.413/2021 (CURRENTLY RE-NUMBERED AS MATTER
BEARING C.C.NO.27075/2023) (ANNEXURE-A); 2.QUASH / SET
ASIDE THE ORDER DATED 11.11.2024 PASSED BY THE HON'BLE
LXVI ADDL.CITY CIVIL AND SESSIONS JUDGE BENGALURU CITY
(CCH 67) IN MATTER BEARING CRL.RP.NO.475/2022; 3.DIRECT
THE RESPONDENT NO.1 POLICE TO DE-FREEZE THE FOLLOWING
ACCOUNT OF THE PETITIONER.
3
IN CRIMINAL PETITION No.1022 OF 2025
BETWEEN:
M/S. MAHI ENTERPRISES
REPRESENTED BY ITS PROPRIETOR,
MR. PARIKH BHAVIK,
S/O MR. LALITH BHAI,
AGED ABOUT 23 YEARS,
R/O NO.9, RAVINIKETAN SOCIETY,
LAST BUS STOP, MEGHANI NAGAR
AHMEDABAD CITY CIVIL HOSPITAL,
GUJARAT - 380 016.
... PETITIONER
(BY SRI BHARATH KUMAR V., ADVOCATE)
AND:
1. STATE BY
CENTRAL CEN CRIME POLICE STATION,
CENTRAL DIVISION,
BENGALURU
REPRESENTED BY
STATE PUBLIC PROSECUTOR,
HON'BLE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA
DR.AMBEDKAR VEEDHI,
BENGALURU - 560 001.
2. M/S.CHANDRU AND CO.,
REPRESENTED BY
MR. HEMANTH SHEKHAR
NO.12/4, NEHRU NAGAR
RAILY PARALLEL ROAD,
NEAR SHESHADRIPURAM CIRCLE,
BENGALURU - 20.
... RESPONDENTS
(BY SRI K.NAGESHWARAPPA, HCGP FOR R-1;
4
SRI K.B.K.SWAMY, ADVOCATE FOR R-2)
THIS CRIMINAL PETITION IS FILED UNDER SECTION 482 OF
CR.P.C., PRAYING TO 1.SET ASIDE THE ORDER DATED 27.09.2021
PASSED BY THE HON'BLE I A.C.M.M BENGALURU IN MATTER
BEARING CR.NO.413/2021 (CURRENTLY RE-NUMBERED AS MATTER
BEARING C.C.NO.27075/2023 (ANNEXURE-A); 2.SET ASIDE THE
ORDER DATED 11.11.2024 PASSED BY THE HON'BLE LXVI
ADDL.CITY CIVIL AND SESSIONS JUDGE BENGALURU CITY (CCH
67) IN MATTER BEARING CRL.RP.NO.34/2024 (ANNEXURE-B).
THESE CRIMINAL PETITIONS HAVING BEEN HEARD AND
RESERVED FOR ORDERS ON 05.02.2026, COMING ON FOR
PRONOUNCEMENT THIS DAY, THE COURT MADE THE FOLLOWING:-
CORAM: THE HON'BLE MR JUSTICE M.NAGAPRASANNA
CAV ORDER
These petitions are preferred by a common petitioner -
accused No.2 in Crime No.413/2021, calling in question the orders
dated 27.09.2021 and 18.05.2022, both passed by the I Additional
Chief Metropolitan Magistrate, Bengaluru, on two applications, both
filed under Sections 451 and 457 of the Cr.P.C. in Crime
No.413/2021, one preferred by the petitioner herein and another by
respondent No.2 - complainant. The application preferred by the
complainant seeking interim custody of the seized amount in
P.F.No.14/2021 of ₹1,12,15,884/- lying in the account of the
5
petitioner in M/s.IDBI Bank comes to be allowed on certain
conditions in terms of the order dated 27.09.2021 and the
application preferred by the petitioner seeking defreezement of his
account held in M/s.IDBI Bank, C.G.Road Branch, Ahmedabad,
comes to be rejected by the concerned Court in terms of the order
dated 18.05.2022. These two orders are challenged before the
concerned Revisional Court in Crl.R.P.Nos.34/2024 and 475/2022
respectively, both of which comes to be dismissed by affirming the
order of the concerned Court in terms of its orders, both dated
11.11.2024.
2. Heard Sri Bharath Kumar V., learned counsel for petitioner,
Sri K. Nageshwarappa, learned High Court Government Pleader for
respondent No.1 and Sri K.B.K.Swamy, learned counsel for
respondent No.2.
3. For the sake of convenience, facts obtaining in
Crl.P.No.1022/2025, which are similar in companion petition on the
question in the lis involved, would be narrated.
6
4. Facts in brief, germane, are as follows:
A complaint comes to be registered on 26.08.2021 by
respondent No.2 - complainant before respondent No.1 - police
station alleging that he was contacted by one Rato Gibson Jude,
who claimed to be representing M/s.Centric Pharmaceutical Limited
through an electronic mail on 19.07.2021 and that M/s.Centric
Pharmaceutical Limited is based in United Kingdom and is
interested in procuring Bio Champacalin Fluid, which is one of the
pharmaceutical products available in India. On the same day, by
another electronic mail, the said person - Rato Gibson Jude claimed
that the said pharmaceutical products needed by the Company
were available with the supplier in India - one M/s.Sagar
Enterprises - Accused No.1. The said person has also claimed that
if the complainant procures the product at a price of U.S.D. 4,000
per litre from M/s. Sagar Enterprises, the same could be sold by
respondent No.2 - complainant at U.S.D. 8,500 per litre to
M/s.Centric Pharmaceutical Limited. The business proposal rang
the bells of accused No.1 and respondent No.2 - complainant.
Communications between the three galore seeking to purchase said
products at an agreed quantity on receipt of 100% payment.
7
Respondent No.2 - complainant procured a sample of 1 litre from
accused No.1 by making a payment of ₹3,00,000/- into the bank
account of accused No.1. Disputes arose with regard to payment or
payment of amount into the hands of accused Nos.1 and 2. The
complainant is said to have parted the entire material but, received
no money. Therefore, the complaint comes to be registered on
26.08.2021, against unknown persons, on account of payment
being made and no material being received. The said complaint
becomes a crime in Crime No.413/2021, for offences punishable
under Sections 419 and 420 of the IPC read with Section 66D of the
Information Technology Act, 2000. The police then debit freeze the
account of the petitioner in terms of the order of the Magistrate on
the requisition application so filed by the jurisdictional Police under
Section 102 of the Cr.P.C. and consequently ₹1,12,15,884/- lying in
the account of the petitioner stood frozen. The police after
conducting investigation file a charge sheet in C.C.No.27075/2023
for the afore-quoted offences, arraigning the petitioner as accused
No.2.
8
5. Respondent No.2 - complainant prefers an application
under Sections 451 and 457 of the Cr.P.C. seeking release of the
aforesaid amount from the bank account of the petitioner
maintained in M/s.IDBI Bank, in favour of respondent No.2 as an
interim custody. On consideration of the application preferred by
respondent No.2, the concerned Court allows the application and
directs release of the aforesaid amount into the interim custody of
respondent No.2 on certain conditions, by order dated 27.09.2021.
Another application from the petitioner springs before the
concerned Court under Sections 451 and 457 of the Cr.P.C.,
seeking a direction for defreezement of the current account of the
petitioner and to allow him to access the account for his business
activities. The concerned Court rejects the application of the
petitioner by its order dated 18.05.2022. Being aggrieved by the
said orders passed by the concerned Court on the applications filed
under Sections 451 and 457 of the Cr.P.C., the petitioner prefers
revision petitions before the Court of Session in
Crl.R.P.Nos.34/2024 and 475/2022 respectively. The Court of
Session in terms of the orders dated 11.11.2024, dismisses the
petitions by affirming the orders passed by the concerned Court.
9
Challenging both these orders in two separate petitions, which was
concerning two separate applications, the petitioner - accused No.2
is before this Court.
6. Sri Bharath Kumar V., learned counsel for the petitioner
would vehemently contend that transactions between the petitioner
and respondent No.2 is only to the tune of ₹30/- lakhs or even
₹40/- lakhs, which would not mean that entire amount of
₹1,12,15,884/- should be frozen and transferred to the
complainant's account. He would submit that petitioner was not
completely heard before passing the said orders. Therefore, the
orders that are passed are in violation of the principles of natural
justice.
7. Per contra, Sri K.B.K.Swamy, learned counsel appearing for
respondent No.2 - complainant would refute the submissions
contending that both the concerned Courts have concurrently held
that accused Nos.1 and 2 together have received the amount from
the hands of the complainant and when the transaction has gone
wrong, it was the bounden duty of the petitioner to return the
money to the complainant. Therefore, the concerned Courts have
10
answered the applications on merit. This court in exercise of its
jurisdiction under Section 482 of the Cr.P.C. should not in any way
interfere and undo what the two Courts have done.
8. I have given my anxious consideration to the submissions
made by the learned counsel for the respective parties and have
perused the material on record.
9. The afore-narrated facts are all a matter of record. The
transactions between the parties begin by an electronic mail
communication initially on 05.08.2021. The e-mail trail between
the parties read as follows:
"On Thursday, 5 August, 2021, 10:52:58 am IST, Sagar
Enterprises<[email protected]>
Kindly send payment receipt.
hemanth shekar <hemanth [email protected]> wrote:
Good Morning Madam,
Please send us the proforma invoice for 40 Liters ASAP. Please
mention that 50% advance to be paid now and balance 50%
within 30 days from the date of delivery.
Once the proforma invoice is received, we will transfer the
money and confirm. Accordingly please arrange to ship the
material by today itself.
11
Can you please share the GST certificate for this entity? Also
please share us the recently filed GSTR return!!
Most importantly, please share the invoice copy for the 1 Liter
sample shipment that was sent 2 weeks back!!
Thanks.
Regards,
Mr. Hemanthshekar
Partner: Chandru and Co.
Bangalore, India. PIN : 560 010."
xxxx
On Thursday, 5 August, 2021, 11:46:37 am IST, hemanth
shekar <[email protected]> wrote:
Good Morning Madam,
Payment of 57 Lacs has been made today. Please see
below transaction reference details:
Please dispatch this order of 40 Liters today itself and confirm.
Share the tracking #. This is bit urgent.
Product should be shipped in 1 Liter containers (40 Nos) without
any additional labeling apart from the product name "Bio
Champacalin Fluid'.
Regards,
Mr. Hemanthshekar
Partner: Chandru and Co.
12
Bangalore, India. PIN: 560010.
Mob: +91 99000 77688
Xxxx
On Friday, August 6, 2021, 12:23 PM, Sagar Enterprises
<[email protected]> wrote:
We are arranging your order.
hemanth shekar <[email protected]> wrote:
Hello Madam,
Please confirm if the product is shipped and share the tracking
#. Thanks.
Regards,
Mr. Hemanthshekar
Partner: Chandru and Co.
Bangalore, India. PIN: 560 010.
Mob: +91 99000 77688
xxxxx
On Tue, Aug 10, 2021 hemanth shekar
<[email protected]> wrote:
Madam,
We are arranging for the balance payment of INR 57
Lakhs for the balance 20 Liters by 4 PM today.
Please ask your team to be ready with the shipment of balance
20 Liters by today itself.
Please use express courier for the same. We need this very
URGENTLY!!
Please don't miss this time. Also we asked for 1 Liter container
but you have shipped 4 cans of 5 Liters each. Please service the
order based on our requirement!!
Regards,
13
Mr. Hemanthshekar
Partner: Chandru and Co.
Bangalore, India. PIN : 560 010.
Mob: +91 99000 77688
From. Sagar Enterprises ([email protected])
To: [email protected]
Date: Tuesday, 10 August, 2021, 12:02 pm-IST
The Lab Director said that what was dispatched is 20 liters and
due huge debts that are unpaid by some customers, they were
unable to dispatch a total 40 liters. They have suggested you
pay the balance for 20 liters to enable them dispatch the
remaining 20 liters.
Please confirm the date and time for payment and we shall
provide you with account details to deposit to enable them
dispatch the remaining 20 liters. Thanks for your understanding.
hemanth shekar <[email protected]> wrote:
Hello madam,
Please update the status of the shipment we are in urgent basis
as we need to order 560 liters
more immmediately
So please don't delay the order
Reply us the mail immediately
Sent from Yahoo Mail for iPhone
Xxxxx
From. Sagar Enterprises ([email protected])
To: [email protected]
Date: Tuesday, 10 August, 2021, 03:40 pm IST
ADHERE STRICTLY TO PAYMENT INSTRUCTION.
PAYMENT INSTRUCTIONS. KINDLY MAKE THE PAYMENT
AS INSTRUCTED.
14
SAGAR ENTERPRISES
DBS BANK
868210061612
IFSC: dbss0in0868
BRANCH:NEW MUMBAI
PAN-FZAPP9536A
GST:27FZAPP9536A1Z9
AMOUNT: 30,00,000/- INR
=================
MAHI ENTERPRISE
IDBI BANK
AC: 0009102000081360
IFSC: IBKL0000009
PAN: AQPPS1841D
BRANCH: CG ROAD
GST: 24AQPPS1841D1ZS
AMOUNT: 27,00,000/-INR."
The transaction goes wrong. A complaint comes to be
registered against certain accused persons - accused Nos.1 and 2,
pursuant to which, a crime comes to be registered in Crime
No.413/2021. The police after investigation file a charge sheet in
C.C.No.27075/2023 against the accused. In the interregnum, a
requisition is made by the Investigating Officer to the Manager of
the IDBI Bank, Branch at C.G.Road, Ahmedabad, to freeze the
account of the petitioner. The order of the concerned Court dated
01.09.2021, on the requisition reads as follows:
15
"1-9-2021
PI Central CEN PS has
filed requisition praying this
court to obtain permission to
seize the amount lying in the
bank account of accused.
Said requisition is
herewith put up for orders.
The I.O. has filed present requisition seeking
to permit him to seize the amount of
Rs.1,12,15,884/- freezed by him, bearing
No.0009102000081360 of IDBI Bank, C.G. road,
Gujrat branch belonging to Mahi Enterprises. It is
alleged that the aforesaid accused of this case
illegally gained money by transferring an amount of
Rs.1.17 crores from complainant assuring to supply
particular fluid and thereby he has cheated
complainant. It is further alleged that in order to
conceal the illegally gained money, the above
amount is transferred to various bank accounts
including the above bank. Hence, it is prayed to
allow the requisition.
Satisfied with grounds that the alleged
amount is part and parcel of amount
transferred by complainant and if same is not
ordered to be seized, it may hamper the
investigation of the case. Further I.O. may be
permitted to seize the said amount by strictly
following the provisions of Sec.102 of Cr.P.C.
Hence, following is:
ORDER
The requisition filed by I.O. dated 31-8-
2021 is allowed. The I.O. is permitted to seize
the aforesaid amount of Rs.1,12,15,884/-,
bearing account No.0009102000081360 of
IDBI Bank, C.G. road, Gujrat branch belonging
to Mahi Enterprise, by strictly complying
provisions of Sec. 102 of Cr.P.C.
16
Sd/-
01/09/2021
I ACMM, Bengaluru.”
10. Two applications are filed, one by the complainant and
another by M/s. Mahi Enterprises – the petitioner herein. The
application filed by the complainant under Sections 451 and 457 of
the Cr.P.C. seeking interim custody of the amount seized by the
Investigating Officer, reads as follows:
“APPLICATION UNDER SECTION 451 & 457 OF THE
CODE OF CRIMINAL PROCEDUREThe petitioner in the above case most respectfully
submits as follows:
1. It is submitted that, the petitioner herein has filed a
complaint before the Central CEN crime PS on 26-08-2021
against the accused persons then, the complainant police have
registered the FIR in their crime No-413/2021 for the offence
punishable under sections 66(D) of the IT Act 2008 and section
419, 420 of IPC regarding the cheating of Rs.1,17,00,000/- to
the petitioner.
2. It is submitted that, the brief facts of the case is that, the
Petitioner herein is running a company by name, Chandru and
Company and he has got the business deal from one M/s. Sagar
Enterprises represented by one Mrs.R.Sagar and company
situated at Guwahati and M/s Centric Pharmaceutical Limited
having its Head Quarters at United Kingdom and had discussions
with the Petitioner herein through mail, phone and skype and
later on 19-07-2021 one Mr. Rato Gibson Jude reaches the
Petitioner over phone and told him that, he is in requirement of
17an Indian Exporter, who can export Indian Products (Herbal
Extracts) named ‘BIO CHAMPACALIN FLUID’ to M/s. Centric
Pharmaceuticals Limited at United Kingdom, who can supply the
product at USD 4000/ Liter and the said Centric Pharmaceuticals
Limited at United Kingdom, will buy it at USD 8500 and the
difference /profit amount will be shared equally.
3. It is submitted that, as such the representative of said
person, one Mr. Christopher, CEO of M/s. Centric
Pharmaceuticals has told the Petitioner to arrange one Liter of
Fluid by 24th July 20201 and his International representative will
meet him India and check the quality etc. On enquiry with M/S.
Sagar Enterprises, they have stated that, they can supply the
required quantity with 100% advance. As such got 1 liter and
contacted the above said Mr. Christopher through mail and he
replied that, International representative to India will him. Then
on confirmation by M/s Sagar Enterprises, the Petitioner has
sent Rs. 3,00,000/- to Sagar Enterprises. Later one Indian
representative Rayphilips told the Petitioner that, he cannot
come to Bangalore due to some reason and he told the
Petitioner to bring 1 liter fluid to Delhi, and he can got it
checked there. Then the Petitioner met him in a hotel at Delhi
and he got a sample gave an amount of USD 500 and left the
place saying that, he will check within an hour or two and went
away and later he came back and told that, there the labs are
not functioning properly and same has to be checked in Mumbai
and he told the Petitioner to leave to Bangalore and he only will
check the same in Mumbai and on successful he will inform the
Petitioner etc., Later he has assured about the continuous
supply agreement. Later as per the request of the Petitioner,
M/S. Sagar Enterprises issued a Proforma invoice for 40 liters
and told him to pay a money. A such an amount of
Rs.1,14,00,000/- has been deposited to the bank account of
M/s. Sagar Enterprisers. On 13-08-2021, when the Petitioner
asked M/s. Sagar Enterprises about the availability of Stock
Inspection, they told that, company will only allow stock
inspection of 80-100 liters and not 40 liters. Then the Petitioner
asked M/s. Sagar Enterprises to return the money as they are
willing to return the product as same can be returned within 7
days from purchase without any with full money back
guaranteed. Then the M/s.Sagar Enterprises also not responded
and not returned the money and the said Christopher’s phone
18also switched off and Rayphilip’s phone also switched off.
No response from anybody. In fact it relevant to mention that,
the above said M/s. Sagar Enterprises has ‘contravened to the
agreed terms between the Petitioner and it and in fact on
05-08-2021 an amount of Rs. 30,00,000/- and Rs.27,00,000/-
have been paid on two occasion, totally Rs. 57,00,000/-, On 10-
08-2021 an amount of Rs. 27,00,000/- and 30,00,000/- has
also paid. As such totally 1,14,00,000/-has been paid by the
Petitioner. In fact the said amount was for 40 liters, but on
opening the product sent by M/s. Sagar Enterprises, it is noticed
that, there is only 20 liters contrary to the agreed terms of 50%
advance. On questioning the same with M/s. Sagar Enterprises,
they told that, recently they have suffered loss due to short
payments so they have sent only the quantity equal to the price
paid. In fact same is contrary to the agreed terms. On
continuous approach, the M/s. Sagar Enterprises informed the
Petitioner that, they will make refund the said amount of
Rs.1,14,00,000/- shortly by 23-08-2021, but not refunded. As
such on trying to call them, again the phones are switched off,
but for the mail, they have replied that, they will refund the said
amount of Rs.1,14,00,000/- on 07-09-2021, but till date no
payment has been made. In view of the above said act of
cheating by M/s. Sagar Enterprises through online and thereby
cheated the Petitioner to the tune of Rs.1,14,00,000/- as
mentioned below.
4. It is submitted that, In fact, all the above said amount has
been transferred to the respective bank accounts shown above
as per the instructions and directions given by the M/s. Sagar
Enterprises. In fact, the Petitioner is having the bank statement
to show the above facts. In fact on 04-08-2021 at 01.34.43 p.m
19
p.m, M/s. Sagar Enterprises have sent an e-mail to the
petitioner herein by attaching the proforma invoice and also the
retails of the 3 bank accounts wherein the Petitioner has to
make the payment. Then the on same day at 03:24 another
mail has been sent to the Petitioner for making payment to the
bank accounts given by them. In fact the complainant has
already sent the amount of Rs. 57,00,000/- to the bank account
of the M/s. Sagar Enterprises only. Hence, the Petitioner herein
has specifically replied that, “As we would get invoice from
one entity, we want to transfer money to one bank
account only pertaining to that entity”. Again on same
day, at 3:24, M/s. Sagar Enterprises has sent a mail by giving
two bank accounts belonging to M/s. Sagar Enterprises only.
Later also regarding business transactions and supply of fluid,
there were several e-mail communications have been taken
place. As such on 10-08-2021 at 03:40 p.m, the above said
M/s. Sagar Enterprises have sent an e-mail stating that, the
amount to be paid to DBS Bank Account of M/s. Sagar
Enterprises to the tune of Rs. 30,00,000/-, and IDBI Bank
account of MAHI ENTERPRISE to the tune of Rs. 27,00,000/-. It
is also mentioned in the said mail that, the payment instructions
to be strictly adhered. In other words, it is mentioned that,
“ADHERE STRICTLY TO PAYMENT INSTRUCTION”. Hence in
view of the same, having no option in order to continue the
deal, the Petitioner herein has sent the amount to the said
account i.e., MAHI ENTERPRISE.
5. It is submitted that, in fact now by filing a memo, the
Investigating Officer has added the names of the accused
persons in the above case, i.e., A1) Sagar Enterprises, A2)
Ray Pilip A3) Mahi Enterprises. The above said M/s. Sagar
Enterprises has instructed the Petitioner to deposit the amount
to the above said MAHI ENTERPRISE, it is nothing but the
conspiracy between M/s. Sagar Enterprises and MAHI
ENTERPRISE. Hence the quantity of the amount deposited to a
particular account is immaterial in view of the fact that, the
proceeds of the crime has been distributed between the
accounts maintained by the above said M/s. Sagar Enterprises
and Mahi Enterprises. By considering the said aspects, the
Investigating officer has seized the said amount. Hence the
Petitioner herein is entitled to the release of the above said
amount in his favour.
20
6. It is submitted that, it is the specific case of the Petitioner
that, in view of the above said business transactions, the above
said M/s. Sagar Enterprises has committed cheating on the
Petitioner and thereby Petitioner has suffered severe loss. Later
during the investigation, the concerned investigating officer has
found that the amount concerned to the above offence is lying
in the bank account and as such, the investigating officer has
filed a requisition on 01.09.2021 before this Hon’ble Court
requesting and prayed to give permission to seize the amount
lying in the bank account of the accused. This Hon’ble Court
has considered the case on record and passed an order
on: 01.09.2021 itself permitting the concerned
investigating officer to seize the aforesaid amount of Rs,
1,12,15,884/- of IDBI Bank, C.G.Road, Gujarat Branch
belonging to Mahi Enterprises.
7. It is submitted that, after passing the order by this
Hon’ble Court, the concerned Investigating Officer has
seized the said amount and after seizing the said amount
he had filed one more requisition seeking permission to
deposit the seized amount to the account of this Hon’ble
Court i.e., C.M.M Court vide D.D. No.086305 in CRCD
along with PF No.14/21. Later, this Hon’ble Court was
pleased to hear the matter and after hearing this Hon’ble
Court was pleased to pass an order by permitting the
investigating officer to deposit the said D.D. amount in
CRCD and directed the office to accept the same. Now,
the above said amount of Rs.1,12,15,884/- is lying in the
account of this Hon’ble Court as stated supra.
8. It is submitted that, as stated supra, the concerned
investigating officer has seized the amount from the
accused company and said amount is belonging to the
Petitioner herein. The concerned investigating officer is
also mentioned in his report before this Hon’ble Court
that, the above said amount is pertaining to the
Petitioner herein i.e., transacted amount as stated in the
complaint. Hence, there is no legal embargo for this
Hon’ble Court to release the above said amount in favour
of the Petitioner herein.
9. It is submitted that, the above said M/s. Sagar
Enterprises has received the amount from the Petitioner
21
herein, to the account of itself and to the account of one
M/s Mahi Enterprises, who is also hand in glove with the
M/s. Sagar Enterprises. The instructions given by M/s.
Sagar Enterprises to the Petitioner herein, directing the
Petitioner to deposit the amount to the above account to
M/s Mahi Enterprises itself shows that, M/s. Sagar
Enterprises has received the above said amount of
Rs.1,14,00,000/- from the Petitioner herein through
M/s.Mahi Enterprises illegal and hence the said amount
may be released in favour of the Petitioner herein.
10. It is submitted that, the petitioner is very much in
need of the above said amount lying in the accounts of
the accused which amount actually belongs to the
petitioner. The above said amount is very much
necessary for the petitioner herein to do his day today
business transactions. It will not serve any useful
purpose if it is idle.
11. It is submitted that, the petitioner is the absolute
owner for an amount of Rs.1,12,15,884/- as stated supra
and petitioner is the complainant before the police
regarding cheating of the said amount by the accused
persons. In fact there is no any counter/ rival claim from
anybody regarding the above said amount and hence,
petitioner is entitled for the possession of the same.
Moreover there are no any other rival claims for the said
amount.
12. It is submitted that, the petitioner is ready to execute
the necessary Bond and undertakes to abide by all the
conditions that may be imposed by this Hon’ble court in
the event of allowing this application.
Wherefore, the Petitioner in the above case most
respectfully prays that, this Hon’ble Court be pleased to
pass an interim order to release the amount of
Rs.1,12,15,884/- (Rupees One Crore Twelve lakhs Fifteen
Thousand Eight Hundred and Eighty Four only) which is
subjected by the Petitioner police in the P.F. No.14/2021
in the above case, which is deposited by the investigating
officer to the account of this Hon’ble Court (CMM Court)
vide D.D. No.086305 in CRCD, as per the order passed by
22
this Hon’ble Court on 01.09.2021, in favour of the
Petitioner herein, pending disposal of the above case to
meet the justice and equity.
Petitioner’s bank Account details:
CHANDRU & Co.
HDFC Bank
A/c. No. 50200033196201
IFSC Code: HDFC0001373
Branch: Rajajinaghar
Bengaluru-560010″
The concerned Court issues notice even to the present
petitioner and thereafter, passes the following order:
“The application filed by the petitioner M/s. Chandru &
Co. under Sec.451 and 457 of Cr.P.C. dated 09-09-2021 is
hereby allowed.
The amount of Rs.1,12,15,844/-seized by I.O.as per
P.F.No.14/2021 and deposited before this Court under
CR.C.D. No.3669 dated 04.09.2021, shall be released to
interim custody of petitioner on execution of Indemnity
Bond for Rs.1,12,15,884/-with two local sureties for
likesum, undertaking to satisfy future rival claims if any.
Condition:
1. Petitioner shall deposit aforesaid amount of
Rs.1,12,15,884/- before this Court as and when directed
to do so, if any rival claim is filed in future.”
Thereafter, the petitioner files an application seeking for a
direction for defreezement of the account and to afford access to
23
the account for performance of his business activities, which reads
as follows:
“1. The complainant police have registered a crime in Cr.
No.413/2021 against the accused for the offences
punishable under Section 66(d) of Information Technology
Act, read with Section 419 and 420 of Indian Penal Code
based on the complaint lodged by one Hemanth Shekhar.
2. It is a case of the informant that they are engaged in the
business running under the name and style M/s Chandru
and company. Further it is the case of the complainant that
they received a business offer through email for exporting
an Indian product BIO CHAMPACALIN FLUID to UK. Upon
receiving the mail, the complainant contacted them and the
business deal was to procure the fluid from the Indian
company i.e., M/s Sagar Enterprises and export the same
to Centric Pharma situated in U.K. In this context, it is
further alleged in the complaint that in relation to the
above said business transaction, a sum of Rs.3,00,000/-
was transferred on 22.07.2021 to said M/s Sagar
Enterprises as an advance for purchasing one liter of
sample fluid Later on 05.08.2021 Rs.30,00,000/- was
transferred to HDFC Bank belonged to M/s Sagar
Enterprises and Rs.27,00,000/- was transferred to DBS
Bank, and on 10.08.2021 Rs.27,00,000/- was transferred
to the current account of the applicant – Mahi Enterprises
with IDBI Bank CG Road branch, Amdavad.
3. Further the complainant alleges in the complaint that after
transferring the amount of Rs.1.17 crores, M/s Sagar
Enterprises have cheated the complainant by failing to
supply the said oil.
4. The complainant police based on the above said complaint
started investigation. During the course of investigation,
the complainant police have seized certain bank accounts
mentioned in the complaint amongst others, the
complainant police have frozen the bank accounts
24pertaining to the applicant as detailed below and arrayed
him as accused No. 3 in the above crime:
Account Name Account Number IFSC Code Amount
Holder of
Name the
Bank
Mahi IDBI 0009102000081360 IBKL0000009 1,12,15,884/-
Enterprises Bank
5. The applicant submits that he is engaged in the business of
trading of goods under the name and style of ‘Mahi
Enterprises’, a sole proprietorship concern carrying on his
business of trading in agricultural commodities and related
activities at Celler/B/3, Kalapurnam Comp. 20/21, Severnt
Society, CG Road, Navrangpura, Amdavad – 380 009. The
copy of the Proprietorship Certificate issued by the
Amdavad Municipal Corporation (Shops and Establishment
Department) vide Registration
No.PII/MNM/2900022/000269798 is produced herewith as
Document No.1.
6. The applicant has been engaged in this business of trading
of agricultural commodity goods for the past several years
having a good reputation in his business circle and society.
The applicant is adutiful and law-abiding citizen engaged in
his lawful business activities and duly complying with all
applicable laws and also ensuring due compliance with all
tax liabilities in respect of his business transactions. The
copy of the Pan Card, the copy of the Aadhaar Card is
produced herewith as Document No.2 & 3, respectively.
7. The applicant’s business activities include supply of goods
procured by him to his customers in Amdavad as well to his
customers in other states. The applicant submits that there
are no averments against the applicant in either the
complainant’s statement or the FIR for having involved with
M/s Sagar Enterprises. Further, the Applicant has
absolutely no connection or business transactions with the
said M/s Sagar Enterprises.
25
8. For the purposes of his lawful business transactions, the
applicant has been using and operating a current account
with IDBI Bank, C G Road Branch, Amdavad, Gujarat
bearing A/c No. 0009102000081360.
9. The applicant received a letter from his banker
stating that there was a communication received by
the applicant’s bank from the Cyber Crime Police
Station Bengaluru regarding registration of Crime
No.413/2021 against the applicant and also direction
of this Hon’ble Court i.e., I ACMM Court Bengaluru in
the said proceedings directing freezing relation to
transactions pertaining to M/s Sagar Enterprises.
Aggrieved by the directions of this Hon’ble Court, the
applicant is filing the present application.
10. The applicant submits that he has not involved in any
fraudulent transaction with any of the accused in the
present proceedings. The complainant police at the
time of investigation have arrayed him as accused
No.3 in the above case and proceeded to freeze the
current account pertaining to the applicant i.e.,
accused No.03 and seized the amount of
Rs.1,12,15,884/- vide PF No.14/2021 which belongs
to the accused No.3
11. The applicant submits that he is unaware of the
business transaction held between the complainant
and M/s Sagar Enterprises. The complainant police
without freezing the Bank Account pertaining to M/s
Sagar Enterprises has straight away proceeded to
freeze the current account pertaining to the applicant
and deposited the amount of Rs.1,12,15,884/- before
this Hon’ble Court.
12. The applicant/accused No.3 submits that he has not
illegally gained money by transferring an amount of
Rs.1.17 crores from complainant.
13. The applicant/accused no.3 submits that he has not
assured the complainant to supply any particular fluid nor
directed the complainant to deposit the money in the name
26
of the applicant. Thereby he has not cheated the
complainant in any manner or played any fraud.
14. The complaint does not disclose any involvement of the
applicant with the accused M/s Sagar Enterprises or other
parties who are arrayed as the accused.
15. The applicant submits that the complainant police
without intimating the same to the applicant has filed
an application and obtained the order for freezing of
the abovementioned bank account of the applicant,
which has caused great hardship to the applicant;
and the applicant also suffered huge losses as he has
not been able to carry on his business without being
able to access the funds in his bank account.
16. The applicant submits that the applicant undertakes to abide
by any condition that may imposed by this Hon’ble court.
17. The applicant submits that the applicant undertakes to
execute an indemnity bond for a sum of Rs.1,12,15,884/-
to the satisfaction of this Hon’ble Court.
18. The applicant undertakes to give surety to the satisfaction of
this Hon’ble court.
19. The applicant shall not tamper with the bank accounts
belonging to the applicant and agrees to be bound by any
future order of this Hon’ble Court in this regard.
PRAYER
Wherefore the Applicant most respectfully prays that this
Hon’ble court be pleased to direct the complainant police
to de-freeze the account pertaining to the applicant and
release the amount of Rs.1,12,15,884/- as mentioned in
the current account bearing No.0009102000081360
which is held in IDBI Bank CG Road Branch, Amdavad,
Gujarat and permit the Applicant to carry on his business
activities, in the interest of justice and equity.”
27
The order of the concerned Court on the afore-quoted
application of the petitioner reads as follows:
“REASONS
10. Point No.1: The complainant police have initially
registered the present case against unknown accused persons
for offences punishable under sections 419, 420 of I.P.C. and
under sections 66(D) of Information Technology Act 2000, on
specific allegation that firm of complainant received a call from
an unknown person and induced to purchase BIO CHAMPACALIN
FLUID from one M/s. Sagar enterprises and to resell said fluid to
it, which would fetch them huge profits. Thereafter, complainant
contacted M/s. Sagar enterprises and transferred
Rs.1,17,00,000/- though its bank account held in HDFC Bank,
DBS Bank and IDBI Bank. Thereafter, the said firm delivered
fake fluid and thereby cheated the complainant firm.
11. Thereafter it shows that I.O. has immediately got
freezed the account of so called accused, i.e., present petitioner
in which the aforesaid illegally gained amount was transferred
by accused I.e., in the account of Mahi Enterprises bearing
No.0009102000081360 held in IDBI Bank, CG Road Branch,
Gujarath. It further shows that as per order dated 01.09.2021,
I.O. has seized the above amount and later got deposited it in
CRCD of this Court under CRCD No.3669 on 04.09.2021.
12. It further shows that as per the application filed by
defacto complainant dated 9.9.2021, this court has released
aforesaid amount of Rs.1,12,15,884/- in favour of said
complainant on condition to deposit the same before this court
as and when directed to do so.
13. Now, the petitioner/accused No.3 by name Bhavik
Lalith Bhai Parikh has come up with present application seeking
to defreeze aforesaid account and to release entire freezed
amount in his favour. counsel for said petitioner has vehemently
argued that as per the case of the complainant himself only
Rs.27 lakhs was transferred to the account of petitioner and
inspite of it, he has got transferred aforesaid huge amount of
28Rs. 1.12 crores, which is hard earned money of this petitioner.
She has further argued that absolutely, there is no nexus
between present and called Sagar petitioner/accused No.3 is
entitled for Enterprises. Hence, the petitioner defreezing of
above account for smooth administration of business and also
entitled for refund of amount seized from his account. In
support of arguments, said Counsel has relied on copy of
Certificate issued by Amdabad Municipal Corporation in favour of
the petitioner under Shops & Establishment Act and copy of PAN
card and Aadhaar Card.
14. On the other hand LC for defacto complainant
vehemently argued that aforesaid Petitioner/accused No.3 in
collusion with Sagar Enterprises has cheated the complainant by
hatching. a conspiracy and the very transfer of part amount of
Rs.27 Lakhs to the account of present petitioner itself is a
strong ground to show his involvement in above offence.
15. Further on perusal of objections of learned
Sr.APP and report of I.O, it shows that the present
petitioner/accused No.3 has not appeared before I.O.
despite issuance of repeated notices nor he has put forth
any documents to show his accumulation of aforesaid
huge amount by lawful means by producing accounts of
his firm. It further shows that he has not co-operated
with investigation and all these aspect raises doubt
regarding his claim towards aforesaid freezed amount.
Moreover, though counsel for the petitioner argued the
email address discloses GST number of the petitioner
firm, counsel for the complainant has produced memo
with online copy of GST status, wherein the GST number
of petitioner shown in email of the complainant is shown
as invalid. These all aspect raises doubt with regard to
conduct of the petitioner and it is difficult to believe that
he has approached the court with clear hands. If at all
the aforesaid account is defreezed and if above amount is
released to the custody of petitioner, there are chances
that the petitioner may repeat similar offence and he may
flee away for ever with aforesaid amount, which would
result in irreparable loss and injury to defacto
complainant. Moreover, filing of requisition by Habibganj
PS, Bhopal is also ground to believe that the aforesaid
account of the petitioner is involved in some other cases
29and several persons have been subjected to fraudulent
transactions in similar manner. These all aspect does not
entitle the petitioner for release of his aforesaid account
at this stage of investigation much less for release of
amount of Rs.1,12,15,884/-, which is already given to
interim custody of defacto complainant. Hence, the
application filed by the petitioner/accused No.3 deserves
to be rejected. Hence, point No.1 is answered in the
Negative.
16. Point No.2: For the reasons stated and findings
given on point No.1 following is :-
ORDER
The application filed by petitioner by
name M/s Mahi Enterprises, represented by
its Proprietor Bhavik Lalith Bhai Parikh under
Sec.451 and 457 of Cr.P.C. dated 8.11.2021 is
hereby rejected.”
These two afore-quoted orders are called in question by the
petitioner before the revisional Court in Crl.R.P.Nos.34/2024 and
475/2022 respectively. The revisional Court by its orders dated
11.11.2024, rejects both the petitions filed by the petitioner and
affirmed the orders passed by the concerned Court. It directs
release of the amount in favour of the complainant with certain
conditions. The orders passed in Crl.P.Nos.34/2024 reads as
follows:
“REASONS
30
9. POINT NO.1:- The petitioner has filed application
under Section 5 of the Limitation Act to condone the delay of
849 days in filing the revision petition. In support of his
application the petitioner has sworn to an affidavit wherein it is
stated that he had preferred revision petition No.475/2022, but
had not specifically assailed the order dated 27/09/2021 passed
by the I ACMM, Bengaluru. In order to ensure the best interest
of justice and to iron out any procedural hurdles, if any he has
preferred the petition separately assailing the order dated
27/09/2021. The delay in filing petition is neither intentional nor
deliberate. Therefore, prayed to allow the application.
10. The Hon’ble Apex Court in catena of cases has held
that “sufficient cause should be given liberal construction so as
to advance substantial justice when there is no inaction, no
negligence or want of bonafide imputable to the appellant. The
object of the Limitation Act is not to destroy and take away the
rights of the parties. This being its objective, provisions to
condone the delay has always been interpreted with a liberal
touch.”
11. On perusal of the above aspect I find no malafide
intention on the part of the appellant for the delay in preferring
the appeal. However in order to meet the ends of justice it is
just and proper to condone the delay as sought for. However,
inconvenienced caused to the respondent may be met with by
imposing cost on the appellant. Under the circumstances the
situation of the appellant is worthy of protection under section 5
of Limitation Act, in view of her illness. Therefore point No.1 is
answered in the Affirmative.
12. POINT No.2: The petitioner has filed this revision
petition challenging the order dated 27/09/2021 in Crime
No.413/2013 (C.C.No.27075/2023) on the file of I ACMM,
Bengaluru passed on application under Section 451 and 457 of
Cr.P.C by the defacto complainant.
13. The counsel for respondent No.2 has vehemently
argued regarding the maintainability of the revision petition
before this Court. He has categorically stated that since the
application is made for interim custody of the amount before the
trial Court, the revision petition is not maintainable. Though I
31
find some force in the arguments advanced by the counsel for
respondent, it is to be noted that the counsel for petitioner has
relied upon a ruling reported in Criminal Revision Petition
100268/2023 in the case of Mustafa vs State of
Karnataka wherein the Hon’ble High Court of Karnataka relying
upon various judgments that when the revision petition is
decided against the petitioner, he has got a right to prefer
revision petition against that order which cannot be construed
as an interlocutory order for the purpose of Section 397 of
Cr.P.C. In view of the finding in the above said judgment, it is to
be considered that the revision petition of this nature is not
maintainable.
14. The petitioner has challenged the order of the learned
Magistrate in allowing the application filed by the defacto
complainant under Section 451 and 457 of Cr.P.C for release of
the amount seized by the police to the tune of Rs.1,12,15,884/-
under PF No.14/21 of CEN Police Station. The contention of the
petitioner is that the defacto complainant transferred a sum of
Rs.27,00,000/- in favour of the petitioner company. The rest of
the amount seized by the police is the hard earned money of the
petitioner and therefore the learned Magistrate ought not to
have rejected the application filed by the petitioner. Though I
find some force in the arguments advanced by the counsel for
petitioner, it is to be noted that the available materials on
record indicates that the petitioner is none other than the
associate of the accused No.1 who entered into agreement with
the defacto complainant and to whom the amount was
transferred from the defacto complainant.
15. I have perused the materials placed before the
Court wherein it indicates that on the basis of the request
of Sagar Enterprises along with whom the defacto
complainant had transaction, the amount was transferred
to the account of Mahi Enterprises. The email
communication to that effect placed on record clearly
indicates the said fact. Apart from the above the
objections filed by the learned Public Prosecutor indicates
that the case came to be registered against the petitioner
by Bhopal Police in connection with similar offence.
Therefore, it has to be ascertained whether the petitioner
is jointly operating with Sagar Enterprises. This can be
32
ascertained only after a full fledged trial. At this stage the
available material on record indicates that the defacto
complainant has transferred the amount to the account of
Sagar Enterprises and Mahi Enterprises. Therefore the
fact that the amount which is deposited in the account of
the petitioner being proceeds of the crime cannot be
ruled out. Further same can be ascertained after a full
fledged trial. It is also not in dispute that the complainant
has lost a sum of Rs.1,17,00,000/- by transferring it to
the account of the petitioner and Sagar Enterprises. Since
there is every possibility that the amount deposited in the
account of the petitioner being proceeds of the crime, I
find no fault in the order of the learned Magistrate in
releasing the amount seized under PF No.14/2021 in
favour of the defacto complainant who actually lost the
amount due to the fraudulent act of the Sagar Enterprises
as well as the petitioner.
16. The learned counsel for the petitioner has
vehemently argued that before freeing of account and
deposits of the amount standing in his account before the
trial Court and prior to release of the same to the defacto
complainant, notice has not been issued to the petitioner.
17. I have gone through the materials produced by
the petitioner himself before the Court which indicates
that CEN Police, Central Division have issued notice under
Section 41(a) of Cr.P.C to the proprietor of M/s. Mahi
Enterprises on 14/9/2021, 23/9/2021, 25/9/2021, but
the petitioner has not responded to the said notice issued
by the IO. When the petitioner has not responded to the
notice issued to him by the IO, he is estopped from taking
a plea that notice was not issued to him before release of
the amount in favour of the defacto complainant. In
support of his contention the counsel for petitioner has relied
upon a judgment passed by the Hon’ble High Court of Karnataka
in WP No.2865/2022 (GM-RES) in the case of Sri. Rahul
Chari and another vs State of Karnataka and others,
wherein the order of the learned Magistrate in releasing the
amount to the complainant was set aside.
33
18. I have gone through the findings given in the said
judgment wherein it indicates that in the said case the petitioner
was not an accused. He was not aware of the registration of the
case. Without he being the accused his account was freezed and
amount was released in favour of the defacto complainant.
19. In the said case, the petitioner was only an account holder
and not an accused. Under the said circumstances the Hon’ble
High Court passed an order to issue notice to the account holder
and set aside the order of the learned Magistrate. The relevant
portion of the judgment of the Hon’ble High Court is extracted
below:
“This Court is coming across scores and
scores of cases where the account is frozen,
defrozen and the amount that the complainant is
due from a suspect or an accused is transferred to
the account of the complainant from the account of
third parties which action is contrary to all cannons
of law”.
But unlike the said case in this case the account does not belong
to third party, but account belong to the petitioner and the said
amount was ordered to be released in favour of the defacto
complainant. Under these circumstances, the ruling relied upon
by the learned counsel for petitioner is not applicable to the
facts and circumstances of this case.
20. The learned counsel for respondent No.2 has argued
to the effect that the order passed by the learned Magistrate is
proper. He has argued that the petitioner is none other than the
accused in this case. Under these circumstances the order
passed by the learned Magistrate is just and proper. In support
of his contention, the learned counsel for respondent No.2 has
relied upon judgment reported in ILR 1984 Karnataka 923 in
the case of Mangharam and sons vs. R.C.Morzaria and
another wherein it is held that :
“In a case like this where the person from
whom the property is seized also claims the
custody of that property, two things are required to
be considered. Normally the person from whom the
34property is seized is entitled to the custody of the
same (with or without conditions) but he will not be
entrusted with the property if there is prima facie
material on record showing that he has committed
some offence re: the same. In such an event, the
claim, if any, of the other person, or the
complainant as in this case, may be considered.
While examining the rival claims the question as to
who was in lawful possession firstly, at the time of
seizure and secondly, earlier that is to say, earlier
to the event which gave cause to that seizure, is
very important. If no prima facie case for any
offence is made out against the person from whom
the property is seized he can be presumed to have
been in lawful possession of the same as the time
of seizure and may be entrusted with it.”
21. The learned counsel for respondent has relied upon
the following rulings:
i) 2004 SCC Online Bom 1101 in case of Pirappa
Mahadeo Birajdar vs. M/s. Arti Co. & others.
ii) 2020 SCC Online MP 4592 in case of Aruni Sahgal
vs. State of Madhya Pradesh.
iii) Crl.M.C No.2622 of 2014 (D) in case of Jaison vs.
State of Kerala and another.
The above citations relied by the counsel for respondent No.2 is
passed by other High Courts. They have got persuasive value.
But the counsel for the petitioner has relied upon a judgment of
the Hon’ble High Court in Criminal Revision Petition
No.100268/2023 dated 18/07/2023, wherein relying upon
various judgments Hon’ble High Court observed that the
revision petition against the order under Section 451 of Cr.P.C is
maintainable. Therefore, the rulings relied upon by the counsel
for respondent cannot be taken into consideration.
22. I have perused the orders passed by the learned
Magistrate wherein it is stated that the petitioner who is
accused No.3 has not appeared before the IO despite
35
issuance repeated notices nor he has put-forth any
documents to show his accumulation of aforesaid huge
amount by lawful means by producing amounts of his
firm. It further shows that he has not co-operated with
investigation and all these aspects raises doubt regarding
his claim towards aforesaid freezed amount. The learned
Magistrate also held that the online copy of GST status,
wherein the GST number of petitioner shown in email of
the complainant is shown as invalid. He has also
discussed regarding the involvement of the petitioner in
this case. Considering all the above aspects the learned
Magistrate has rightly rejected the application filed by the
petitioner and I find no ground to interfere with the
orders passed by the learned Magistrate.
23. On perusal of the materials placed before the
Court and orders passed by the learned Magistrate there
is nothing on record to come to a conclusion that
correctness, legality or proprietary of the findings
recorded by the trial Court suffers from all the infirmities.
It is to be noted that the amount was released to the
interim custody of the defacto complainant. There are all
the opportunities for the petitioner to put forward his
claim during the conclusion of the trial. Therefore I find
no reason to interfere with the finding of the learned trial
Court. Therefore, the point No.2 is answered in the
negative.
24. Point No.3:- In the result I proceed to pass the
following:-
ORDER
The petition filed by the petitioners
under Section 397(3) of Code of Criminal
Procedure Code is hereby dismissed with
cost.”
The order passed in Crl.R.P.No.475/2022 reads as follows:
36
“…. …. ….
REASONS
10. POINT NO.1 :- The petitioner has filed this revision
petition challenging the order dated 18/05/2022 in Crime
No.413/2013 on the file of I ACMM, Bengaluru passed on
application under Section 451 and 457 of Cr.P.C by petitioner/
accused No.3.
11. The counsel for respondent No.2 has vehemently
argued regarding the maintainability of the revision petition
before this Court. He has categorically stated that since the
application is made for interim custody of the amount before the
trial Court. the revision petition is not maintainable. Though I
find some force in the arguments advanced by the counsel for
respondent. it is to be noted that the counsel for petitioner has
relied upon a ruling reported in Criminal Revision Petition
100268/2023 in the case of Mustafa vs State of
Karnataka wherein the Hon’ble High Court of Karnataka relying
upon various judgments held that when the revision petition is
decided against the petitioner. he has got a right to prefer
revision petition against that order which cannot be construed
as an interlocutory order for the purpose of Section 397 of
Cr.P.C. In view of the finding in the above said judgment, it is to
be considered that the revision petition of this nature is
maintainable.
12. The petitioner has challenged the order of the learned
Magistrate in dismissing the application filed by him under
Section 451 and 457 of Cr.P.C for release of the amount seized
by the police to the tune of Rs. 1,12,15,884/- under PF
No.14/21 of CEN Police Station. The contention of the petitioner
is that the defacto complainant transferred a sum of
Rs.27,00,000/- in favour of the petitioner company. The rest of
the amount seized by the police is the hard earned money of the
petitioner and therefore the learned Magistrate ought not to
have rejected the application filed by the petitioner. Though I
find some force in the arguments advanced by the counsel for
petitioner, it is to be noted that the available materials on
record indicates that the petitioner is none other than the
associate of the accused No.1 who entered into agreement with
the defacto complainant and to whom the amount was
transferred from the defacto complainant.
37
13. I have perused the materials placed before the
Court wherein it indicates that on the basis of the request
of Sagar Enterprises along with whom the defacto
complainant had transaction, the amount was transferred
to the account of Mahi Enterprises. The email
communication to that effect placed on record clearly
indicates the said fact. Apart from the above the
objections filed by the learned Public Prosecutor indicates
that the case came to be registered against the petitioner
by Bhopal Police in connection with similar offence.
Therefore, it has to be ascertained whether the petitioner
is jointly operating with Sagar Enterprises. This can be
ascertained only after a full fledged trial. At this stage the
available material on record indicates that the defacto
complainant has transferred the amount to the account of
Sagar Enterprises and Mahi Enterprises. Therefore the
fact that the amount which is deposited in the account of
the petitioner being proceeds of the crime cannot be
ruled out. Further same can be ascertained after a full
fledged trial. It is also not in dispute that the complainant
has lost a sum of Rs.1,17,00,000/- by transferring it to
the account of the petitioner and Sagar Enterprises. Since
there is every possibility that the amount deposited in the
account of the petitioner being proceeds of the crime, I
find no fault in the order of the learned Magistrate in
releasing the amount seized under PF No.14/2021 in
favour of the defacto complainant who actually lost the
amount due to the fraudulent act of the Sagar Enterprises
well as the petitioner.
14. The counsel for petitioner has also advanced his
arguments that the account of the petitioner is freezed by the
bank on the request of the concerned police and no purpose
would be served by freezing the account. He is transacting his
business through the said account and he requires the said
account for day today transaction and therefore sought to de-
freeze the said account and also challenged the order of learned
Magistrate in dismissing the said application. It is not in dispute
that the defacto complainant has transferred the amount to the
account of the petitioner. When the documents are available in
proof of the same, it is not forthcoming and not explained as to
38why a situation arose to defraud the defacto complainant on the
part of the petitioner.
: 15. Apart from the above there are also materials to
show that the petitioner is involved in similar offences and the
Bhopal police are in search of the petitioner and they have also
sought for freezing of the account of the petitioner. Under these
circumstances if an order of de-freezing the account of the
petitioner is passed, definitely there are chances of the
petitioner committing similar offence and there are also chances
of destroying of material, evidence. Further it may also come in
the way of proper investigation of this case as well as case
registered by Bhopal Police. Under these circumstances the
reason assigned by the learned Magistrate dismissing the
application filed for de-freezing the account of the petitioner
does not suffer from any infirmity.
16. The learned counsel for the petitioner has vehemently
argued that before freeing of account and deposits of the
amount standing in his account before the trial Court and prior
to release of the same to the defacto complainant, notice has
not been issued to the petitioner.
17. I have gone through the materials produced by
the petitioner himself before the Court which indicates
that CEN Police, Central Division have issued notice under
Section 41(a) of Cr.P.C to the proprietor of M/s. Mahi
Enterprises on 14/9/2021, 23/9/2021, 25/9/2021, but
the petitioner has not responded to the said notice issued
by the IO. When the petitioner has not responded to the
notice issued to him by the IO, he is estopped from taking
a plea that notice was not issued to him before release of
the amount in favour of the defacto complainant. In
support of his contention the counsel for petitioner has relied
upon a judgment passed by the Hon’ble High Court of Karnataka
in WP No.2865/2022 (GM-RES) in the case of Sri. Rahul
Chari and another vs State of Karnataka and others,
wherein the order of the learned Magistrate in releasing the
amount to the complainant was set aside.
18. I have gone through the findings given in the said
judgment wherein it indicates that in the said case the petitioner
was not an accused. He was not aware of the registration of the
39case. Without he being the accused his account was freezed and
amount was released in favour of the defacto complainant.
19. In the said case, the petitioner was only an account
holder and not an accused. Under the said circumstances the
Hon’ble High Court passed an order to issue notice to the
account holder and set aside the order of the learned
Magistrate. The relevant portion of the judgment of the Hon’ble
High Court is extracted“This Court is coming across scores and scores
of cases where the account is frozen, defrozen and the
amount that the complainant is due from a suspect or
an accused is transferred to the account of the
complainant from the account of third parties which
action is contrary to all cannons of law”.
But unlike the said case in this case the account does not belong
to third party, but account belong to the petitioner and the said
amount was ordered to be released in favour of the defacto
complainant. Under these circumstances, the ruling relied upon
by the learned counsel for petitioner is not applicable to the
facts and circumstances of this case.
20. The learned counsel for respondent No.2 has argued
to the effect that the order passed by the learned Magistrate is
proper. He has argued that the petitioner is none other than the
accused in this case. Under these circumstances the order
passed by the learned Magistrate is just and proper. In support
of his contention, the learned counsel for respondent No.2 has
relied upon judgment reported in ILR 1984 Karnataka 923 in
the case of Mangharam and sons vs. R.C.Morzaria and
another wherein it is held that :
“In a case like this where the person from whom
the property is seized also claims the custody of that
property, two things are required to be considered.
Normally the person from whom the property is seized is
entitled to the custody of the same (with or without
conditions) but he will not be entrusted with the
property if there is prima facie material on record
showing that he has committed some offence re: the
same. In such an event, the claim, if any, of the other
person, or the complainant as in this case, may be
40considered. While examining the rival claims the
question as to who was in lawful possession firstly. at
the time of seizure and secondly, earlier that is to say,
earlier to the event which gave cause to that seizure, is
very important. If no prima facie case for any offence is
made out against the person from whom the property is
seized he can be presumed to have been in lawful
possession of the same as the time of seizure and may
be entrusted with it.”
21. I have perused the orders passed by the learned
Magistrate wherein it is stated that the petitioner who is
accused No.3 has not appeared before the IO despite
issuance of repeated notices nor he has put-forth any
documents to show his accumulation of aforesaid huge
amount by lawful means by producing amounts of his
firm. It further shows that he has not co-operated with
investigation and all these aspects raises doubt regarding
his claim towards aforesaid freezed amount. The learned
Magistrate also held that the online copy of GST status,
wherein the GST number of petitioner shown in email of
the complainant is shown as invalid. He has also
discussed regarding the involvement of the petitioner in
this case. Considering all the above aspects the learned
Magistrate has rightly rejected the application filed by the
petitioner and I find no ground to interfere with the
orders passed by the learned Magistrate.
22. On perusal of the materials placed before the
Court and orders passed by the learned Magistrate there
is nothing on record to come to a conclusion that
correctness, legality or proprietary of the findings
recorded by the trial Court suffers from all the infirmities.
It is to be noted that the amount was released to the
interim custody of the defacto complainant. There are all
the opportunities for the petitioner to put forward his
claim during the conclusion of the trial. Therefore I find
no reason to interfere with the finding of the learned trial
Court. Therefore, the point No. 1 is answered in the
negative.
23. Point No.2:- In the result I proceed to pass the
following:-
41
ORDER
The petition filed by the petitioners
under Section 397(3), of Code of Criminal
Procedure Code is hereby dismissed with
cost.”
(Emphasis added at each instance)
A perusal at the orders passed by the concerned Court and
that of the revisional Court would clearly indicate that the
concerned Court traversing through the entire transactions between
the parties right from the email trail between them that begins from
10.08.2021 and with regard to the transfer of amount or the
transportation of material from the hands of the petitioner –
accused No.2 and in turn to accused No.1 and has rightly directed
to release the amount in favour of the complainant.
11. It is apposite to quote the judgment of the Apex Court in
the case of BIR SINGH v. MUKESH KUMAR1, wherein it is held as
follows:
“…. …. ….
15. The appellate court affirmed the aforesaid factual
findings. The trial court and the appellate court arrived at the
specific concurrent factual finding that the cheque had
1
(2019) 4 SCC 197
42
admittedly been signed by the respondent-accused. The trial
court and the appellate court rejected the plea of the
respondent-accused that the appellant complainant had
misused a blank signed cheque made over by the respondent-
accused to the appellant complainant for deposit of income
tax, in view of the admission of the respondent-accused that
taxes were paid in cash for which the appellant complainant
used to take payment from the respondent in cash.
16. It is well settled that in exercise of revisional
jurisdiction under Section 482 of the Criminal
Procedure Code, the High Court does not, in the
absence of perversity, upset concurrent factual
findings. It is not for the Revisional Court to re-analyse
and re-interpret the evidence on record.
17. As held by this Court in Southern Sales &
Services v. Sauermilch Design and Handels
GmbH [Southern Sales & Services v. Sauermilch Design
and Handels GmbH, (2008) 14 SCC 457] , it is a well-
established principle of law that the Revisional Court
will not interfere even if a wrong order is passed by a
court having jurisdiction, in the absence of a
jurisdictional error. The answer to the first question is
therefore, in the negative.”
(Emphasis supplied)
The Apex Court in terms of the afore-quoted judgment holds
that the High Courts are not the Revisional Courts to re-analyse and
re-interpret the evidence on record and upset the concurrent
findings rendered by the trial Courts. In that light, no fault can be
found at the hands of the concerned Courts, as the concerned
Courts have imposed certain conditions that in the event of the
43
complainant losing the case, he shall re-deposit the entire amount
before the concerned Court. In the light of such prediction and
respondent No.2 – complainant prima facie, who has lost the
aforesaid amount and more, with the ploy of accused Nos.1 and 2
and he proving that he is entitled to the said amount, there is no
warrant of interference with the orders which are rendered on
cogent reasons.
12. Finding no merit in these petitions, the petitions stand
rejected.
Sd/-
(M.NAGAPRASANNA)
JUDGE
nvj
CT:MJ/SS
