1 CRA-167-168-10.sxw IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY CRIMINAL APPELLATE JURISDICTION Mhi CRIMINAL REVISION APPLICATION NO. 167 OF 2010 WITH CRIMINAL REVISION APPLICATION NO. 168 OF 2010 CRI. REVISION APPLICATION NO. 167 OF 2010 Ms. Lavina S. Tekwani ) Age 26 years, Occ.Fashion Desiner, ) R/at 13/168, Daulatnagar, ) Thane (E) - 400 603. ).. Applicant vs. 1. The State of Maharashtra 2. C.B.I. (A.C.B) ) Tanna House, 11 Nathalal ) Parekh Marg, Colaba, ) Mumbai 400 039. ).. Respondents CRI. REVISION APPLICATIN NO. 168 OF 2010 Ms. Roshni S. Tekwani ) Age 19 years, Oocc.Fahion Designer ) R/at 13/168, Daulatnagar, ) Thane (E) - 400 603. ). Applicant vs. 1. The State of Maharashtra 2. C.B.I. (A.C.B) ) Tanna House, 11 Nathalal ) Parekh Marg, Colaba, ) Mumbai 400 039. ).. Respondents Mr. A.P.Mundargi i/b. Shri Avinash Kamkhedkar, Advocate, for the applicant. Mrs. V.R.Bhosale, APP, for the respondent No.1 - State. Mr. Mandar Goswami, advocate, for the Respondent No.2 - CBI. 2 CRA-167-168-10.sxw CORAM: J.H.BHATIA,J. DATE : 5th April, 2011. JUDGMENT: 1. Rule. Rule made returnable forthwith. Heard. 2. The applicants in both the Applications are sisters inter-se. Their father was Deputy Commissioner of Income-tax and is accused No.3. On 11.12.2006, the accused Nos. 1 and 2 were nabbed during a trap while accepting bribe of Rs.2,75,000/-. It was revealed that accused No.3 had received certain valuable articles by misusing his authority as Deputy Commissioner of Income- tax. On 13.12.2006, the house of their father was searched and during that search, huge movable property, including cash and jewellery and documents showing deposits in the Banks were recovered. The applicants have filed these Applications seeking release of the properties which, according to them, belong to them and not to their father. According to Lavina, she had completed some course in Fashion Designing after graduation and she had income from the fashion designing. She was also receiving gifts from her married elder sister Kiran, who is situated in Netherland. She had also sold her flat for Rs.33 lakh during the year 2006. She had also jewellery which had come to her as gifts from relatives from paternal and maternal side. The applicant - Roshni also claimed that she had 3 CRA-167-168-10.sxw income and she had also received some gifts from time to time from relatives and, therefore, she requested to release her passport, the account with the State Bank of India and the jewellery items belonging to her. The application is opposed by the CBI. 3. The Ledger for cash at Bank for the period from 1.4.2006 to 31.3.2007 in respect of the applicant Lavina,reveals that during that year, she had earned amount of Rs.34,700/- from fashion desgning. She was born in 1983 and at the time of search, she was aged about 23 years. She had graduated and was doing the fashion desiging work. Therefore, this income appears to be reasonable and probable. However, there are other huge amounts which cannot be properly explained at this stage. For example, there are receipts of Rs.1,50,000/- from V.K.Bajaj dated 19.4.2006 and Rs.1,50,000/- from A.K.Bajaj on 27.5.2006. Besides this, she appears to have received amount of Rs.5 lakh on 9.5.2006 and rs.2 lakh on 23.6.2006 from her sister Kiran, who is NRI. She had shown income of Rs.2,22,000/- from lottery. There are three entries of receipt of Rs.2 lakh, Rs. 74,500/- and Rs.2 lakh from Roshni, who is her younger sister and who was aged about 18 years at that time. It is difficult to understand how such huge amount could be received by her from younger sister Roshni who was just 18 years old and who was only a college student. There is also entry of receipt of Rs.4,50,000/- 4 CRA-167-168-10.sxw from her mother Kavita. Similarly, there is an entry of receipt of Rs.33 lakh and Rs.1,34,500/- from the flat at Kalpatru on 23.10.2006. It appears that the said flat was purchased in the name of both the applicants for consideration of Rs.12 lakh. The purchase of the flat for Rs.12 lakh, prima facie, does not appear to be from the income of these two applicants. Therefore, the sale proceeds of that flat also prima facie, do not appear to be property of the applicants. There are several other entries which are suspicious. 4. It appears that Roshni had no independent income in the year 2006. The ornaments claimed by the applicants were found in the two lockers in the name of their mother. In the State Bank of India Saving account, there is an amount of Rs.1,05,000/-. Besides, there were fixed deposit receipts from ICICI Bank. Taking into consideration the facts and circumstances noted above, the applicants will have to establish their claim on the said property at the time of trial before the Specal Court. At this stage, it is difficult to accept their claims, except to the extent of Rs.34,700/- which was the income of the applicant Lavina from fashion designing. 5. For the aforesaid reasons, Revision Application No.167/2010 is partly allowed. The C.B.I. shall release the amount of Rs.34,700/- in favour of the 5 CRA-167-168-10.sxw applicant Lavina as prima facie it appears to be her income from fashion designing. The Application in respect of the remaining items stands dismissed. Similarly, Revision Application NO.168/2010 also stands dismissed. (J.H.BHATIA,J.)