1 BEFORE THE MADURAI BENCH OF MADRAS HIGH COURT DATED : 30.09.2011 CORAM THE HONOURABLE MS.JUSTICE R.MALA Crl.O.P.(MD).No.9792 of 2011 G.Sheik Mohaideen : Petitioner(Accused – 1) -Vs- State rep. by The Deputy Superintendent of Police, Economic Offences Wing-II, Madurai, Madurai District Crime No.28 of 2010 : Respondent(Complainant) PRAYER: Petition is filed under Section 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure praying to direct the respondent to remove the seal and lock put up by the respondent and direct him to handover the keys of the office of the petitioner namely “Paramount Marketing Corporation” at Door No.22/44, H.A.K.Road, Chinna Chockkikulam, Madurai – 2, to the petitioner. For Petitioner : Mr.R.Anand For Respondent : Mr.K.V.Rajarajan, Govt. Advocate(Crl. Side) O R D E R This petition is filed direct the respondent to remove the seal and lock put up by the respondent and direct him to handover the keys of the officer of the petitioner namely “Paramount Marketing Corporation” at Door No.22/44, H.A.K.Road, Chinna Chockkikulam, Madurai – 2, to the petitioner. 2.The learned counsel appearing for the petitioner would submit that the petitioner is an accused/A1 in crime No.28 of 2010 registered by the 2nd respondent police for the alleged offence under Sections 406, 420, 120(B) I.P.C. and Section 5 of the Tamil Nadu Protection of Interest of Depositors Act, 1997, on the basis of the complaint given by one Deivendran and after the petitioner was arrested, police custody has been taken and during the interrogation, the investigation officer, having possessed the keys, in the presence of the petitioner, opened the office premises, has almost changed the geographical structure of the things, which are being kept in the office. After that they put up lock and sealed the building. He would further submit that the property is situated in shop area and it consists of two floors, in which the ground and first floor, the officials of the Paramount Marketing Corporation have got their https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/hcservices/ 2 respective cabins and the 2nd floor is a community hall which was occasionally used by the petitioner for the purpose of conducting meeting with his staffs. He would further submit that the respondent was now under the mistaken impression, has taken possession of the property and it was under lock and key and the key is with the investigating officer. He would further submit that after the petitioner has coming out on bail, the respondent has roped all the family members of the petitioner and since the office premises is under the custody of the respondent, the property is not able to made under their usage for any other purpose. 3.He would further submit that it is settled proposition of law that no one can be deprived of the enjoying the property if it is exclusively belonging to him and the property right is none other than a right which has been conferred upon under Indian constitution. He would further submit that admittedly, the property is belonging to the petitioner and the registration of the criminal case as against the petitioner does not preclude the petitioner from having the right of his enjoyment over the said property and the respondent has no authority to seal the premises of the petitioner and to keep the keys in his custody and no law would permit him to do so. 4.He would further submit that the main intention of the respondent is only to deprive the petitioner from enjoying with the above said property. He would further submit that since the sons of the petitioner have been shown as A3 and A4, the respondent locked and sealed the house of A3 and A4, for which A3 and A4 approached the Special Court and TNPID Cases Madurai, by filing Cr.M.P.Nos.394 and 395 of 2011 and those applications have been allowed against which, the respondent has preferred a revision in Crl.R.C.No.328 of 2011, wherein, it was held that it is a settled position of law that the right to property is a constitutional right and such right can be deprived only by way of recourse of due process of law and hence, the petitioner is entitled to have his office premises to be opened for his usage and hence, the petitioner has come forward with the present application, directing the respondent to remove the seal and lock put up by the respondent and directing him to hand over the keys of the office of the petitioner. 5.The learned Government Advocate filed a counter stating that the case has been registered in crime No.28 of 2010 on the basis of the complaint given by one Deivendran against the petitioner as well as others. The petitioner promised the defacto complainant to give back more than 10 times of returns for the amount deposited in his Paramount Marketing Corporation company by way of selling Thirukkural books and by his sweetened words, the petitioner and others collected deposits roughly Rs.65.5 crores from nearly 45,000 innocent people. He would further submit that the petitioner was arrested and he has given a confession statement stating that he had acquired various properties by using the proceeds of crime and the investigation officer recovered the documents of properties purchased by A1/the petitioner herein and also seized 3 vehicles from his office and he he conducted search in the office of the petitioner in front of two witnesses and prepared a list of articles kept inside the office and the sent the same to the Court and subsequently, the case was https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/hcservices/ 3 transferred to E.O.W – II Madurai Unit on 01.09.2010 as per the order of the Director General of Police, Chennai. 6.He would further submit that on 18.09.2010, the Deputy Superintendent of Police, E.O.W. - II Madurai conducted search in the Paramaount Marketing Corporation Office and made inventory of the articles like table, chair, AC Machines, fans and other office materials were kept inside the office and the door lock was sealed. He would further submit that the properties of A1 have been purchased out of the earnings by cheating the public are identified to about roughly Rs.15 crores and the formalities for drafting the attachment proposal is underway. He would further submit that on 22.07.2011, the property petition was measured by the officials of P.W.D. and if the premises of the petitioner is opened or the keys handed over to the petitioner, the fond hope of the affected public that they could get back their hard earned money would be of no avail and the petitioner would certainly try to alienate or encumber the property. 7.He would further submit in his additional counter affidavit that at present, in the said premises 55 Computer Systems, 17 Printers and 2 currency counting machines, steel bureaus and other related furnitures are kept inside the premises and all electronic gadgets are to be preserved as per the norms of IT Act and sent to the Forensic Laboratory for retrieval of evidences as most of money transactions are learnt to be stored in the said computers and if the petitioner is allowed to access these gadgets, he would destroy the stored evidences, alienate and encumber the evidences and thereby cause irreparable damages to the prosecution of the case and the allegation that the geographical structure of the building is changed is totally untrue and falsehood. 8.He would further that after the receipt of the report from P.W.D officials, the measurement certificate and other related data of the building has to be sent to the Home Department for consideration and to pass attachment orders by government order. He would further submit that in accordance with earlier orders, keys of two residential houses proposed to be attached were handed over to the petitioner on 01.07.2011 and the petitioner causing disturbance to the attachment proceedings and hence, he prayed for the dismissal of the application. 9.I have considered the submissions made on either side and perused the materials available on records. 10.Admittedly, on the basis of the complaint given by one Deivendran, a case has been registered in crime No.28 of 2010 for the offence under Sections 406, 420 and 120(B) and Section 5 of the Tamil Nadu Protection of Interest of Depositors Act, 1997, against the petitioner and others and the petitioner for the alleging offence of cheating his deposit amount of Rs.18 lakhs under the guise of selling Thirukkural Books and giving higher returns to him. The petitioner herein promised to give back more than 10 times of returns for the amount deposited in his Paramount Marketing Corporation Company by way of selling Thirukkural books and by the sweetened words, the petitioner and others collected deposits roughly Rs.65.5 crores from nearly 45,000 innocent public. https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/hcservices/ 4 11.As per the documents filed by the petitioner, it is true, during the investigation, the investigating agency has sealed the residential houses of the petitioner sons, who are arrayed as A3 and A4 and the articles were recovered and the same placed under lock and key. Immediately, A3 and A4 preferred have preferred petitions in Crl.M.P.Nos.394 and 395 of 2011 before the Special Court, TNPID Act for handing over the key to them and on 08.03.2011, the learned Special Judge, TNPID Act, allowed the same. Against which, the respondent/investigation officer has preferred a revision in Crl.R.C.No.328 of 2011, which was dismissed and upheld the order of the learned Special Judge, TNPID Court, Madurai, by this Court. While perusing the order made in Crl.R.C.(MD) NO.328 of 2011, this Court in paragraph No.9, has held as follows: “The Special Court while passing the above said order, also gone into the merits of the case and gave a finding that there is no evidence to show that the 4th accused was employed as Manager or Director in the concern. In the considered opinion of the Court, such a finding is not warranted as the adjudication is yet to be done. therefore, the findings in this regard made by the Special Court, are expunged.” But, here, the petitioner A1 is the Managing Director in that concern and it is an official place, where the petitioner is running his office viz., Paramaount Marketing Corporation Office. The petitioner has specifically mentioned in his affidavit that the office consists of two floors, in which the ground and first floor, the officials of the Paramount Marketing Corporation have got their respective cabins and the 2nd floor is a community hall which was occasionally used by the petitioner for the purpose of conducting meeting with his staffs. 12.The learned Government Advocate (criminal side) would mainly focus upon the paragraph No.3 of the additional counter affidavit and submit that now in the premises, 55 Computer Systems, 17 Printers and 2 currency counting machines, steel bureaus and other related furnitures are kept inside the premises and all electronic gadgets are to be preserved as per the norms of IT Act and sent to the Forensic Laboratory for retrieval of evidences as most of money transactions are learnt to be stored in the said computers. 13.In such circumstances, no doubt a case has been registered against the petitioner that he has collected and cheated the deposit of Rs.18 lakhs under the guise of selling Thirukkural Books and giving higher returns to him. This petitioner has also given promise to give back more than 10 times of returns for the amount deposited in his Paramount Marketing Corporation Company by way of selling Thirukkural books. No doubt, the properties of the petitioner is now under the control of the respondent police and it is lock and key and sealed, since because, as per the version of the learned Government Advocate, if the key has been handed over to the petitioner, he may tamper the evidence, which will cause hindrance to the investigation. 14.Further, it is pertinent to note that the respondent herein has taken steps to attach the property and the proceedings is under way and he wants six days time for finalizing the formalities. Since, it is the place, where the occurrence has been taken place and https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/hcservices/ 5 it is a scene of occurrence, all the materials viz., computers, printers and other furnitures are kept inside, if the key was handed over to the petitioner, certainly, he would destroy the evidence. 15.Even though, the sons of the petitioner has filed the applications before the Special Court for TNPID Act Cases and obtained the order, which was confirmed by this in the Criminal Revision Petition, the petitioner has not invoked the provision under TNPID ACT before the Special Court and he straight away has come forward with the present application invoking Section 482 Cr.P.C. 16.Therefore, in such circumstances, I am of the view that this petition itself is a premature one, since there is a specific provision, without invoking the same, the petitioner directly approached this Court and the petitioner is not entitled for the relief sought for in the petition. 17.Besides this, the office was running in the place i.e. Scene of occurrence, where all the Computer Systems, Printers and other furnitures are kept inside the premises and all electronic gadgets are to be preserved as per the norms of IT Act and sent to the Forensic Laboratory for retrieval of evidences as most of money transactions are learnt to be stored in the said computers and if the keys were handed over to the petitioner, he will tamper the evidence and hence, it is not a fit case to grant the relief sought for by the petitioner and the petition deserves to be dismissed. 18.Accordingly, this criminal original petition is dismissed. Sd/- Assistant Registrar(CO) /True Copy/ Sub Assistant Registrar To 1.The Deputy Superintendent of Police, Economic Offences Wing-II,Madurai, Madurai District 2.The Addl.Public Prosecutor, Madurai Bench of Madras High Court,Madurai. +1cc to Mr.R.Anand, Advocate Sr.No.34626 arul ssk/11.10.2011 /4c-5p/- Pre-Deliver order made in Crl.O.P.(MD).No.9792 of 2011 30.09.2011 https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/hcservices/