IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE R.BASANT WEDNESDAY, THE 23RD JULY 2008 / 1ST SRAVANA 1930 Crl.MC.No. 2646 of 2008() ------------------------- PETITIONER: ------------ JAYAGANESH, AGED 32 YEARS, S/O MURUKESAN, VADIVILLOM HOUSE, GANDHI NAGAR, CHEKKENTHARA, PALLIPURAM P.O., PALAGHAT. BY ADV. SRI.A.T.ANILKUMAR RESPONDENTS: ------------- 1. STATE OF KERALA, REPRESENTED BY PUBLIC PROSECUTOR, HIGH COURT OF KERALA, ERNAKULAM. 2. THE SUPERINTENDENT OF POLICE, VIGILANCE AND ANTICORRUPTION CELL, SPECIAL CELL, ERNAKULAM. BY PUBLIC PROSECUTOR SRI.P.N. SUKUMARAN THIS CRIMINAL MISC. CASE HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 23/07/2008, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY PASSED THE FOLLOWING: R. BASANT, J. - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - Crl.M.C.No. 2646 of 2008 - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - Dated this the 23rd day of July, 2008 O R D E R The petitioner is the neighbour of an accused person, who faces allegations under the Prevention of Corruption Act. When the premises of the said neighbour/accused was searched, the Vigilance officials came across a S.B. Account pass book in the name of the petitioner maintained with the Palghat District Co- operative Bank. A huge amount was available in the said account. The Investigating Officers have directed the bank not to permit operation of the said account. The petitioner has come to this Court directly without and before moving the court concerned with a prayer that powers under Section 482 Cr.P.C. may be invoked to issue directions to the bank to release the amounts to the petitioner. 2. Notice was given to the learned Prosecutor. The learned Prosecutor submits that there are absolutely no circumstances justifying the invocation of the powers under Crl.M.C.No. 2646 of 2008 2 Section 482 Cr.P.C. The petitioner may be directed to approach the court concerned with appropriate prayer, whereupon the said court must consider the prayer of the petitioner in the light of the objections which the respondent has to raise. The case of the respondent/police is that the amount does not really belong to the petitioner and does really belong to the accused/public servant, who is facing proceedings under the Prevention of Corruption Act. 3. It is further pointed out by both sides that when the accused/ neighbour had come to this Court with a claim for release of the amounts in his account, another Bench of this Court as per order dt.19.3.08 in Crl.M.C.1127 of 2008 had dismissed the said application with the direction that such petitioner can approach the learned Special Judge with a prayer for release of the amounts. Identical direction may be issued in this case also, it is prayed. 4. I am satisfied that that is the proper course which this Court should follow in the given circumstances. 5. This Crl.M.C. is in these circumstances dismissed. But I may hasten to observe that the dismissal of this petition will not in any way Crl.M.C.No. 2646 of 2008 3 fetter the rights of the petitioner to approach the learned Special Judge having jurisdiction claiming release of the amounts in respect of which directions are issued by the Investigating Officers. (R. BASANT) Judge tm