1 (Cri appln 2165 of 2010) IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY CRIMINAL APPELLATE JURISDICTION CRIMINAL APPLICATION NO. 2165 OF 2010 Mr.Kelazhy Parmeshwaran Raman ...Applicant Vs. The State of Maharashtra and Ors. ...Respondents ----- Mr.Rajendra Sorankar for Applicant Mrs. M.R. Tidake -APP for State Ms.Kajal Burg i/b. Dave and Girish & Co. for Respondent No.2 ----- CORAM: V.M. KANADE J. DATED:26TH NOVEMBER, 2010 P.C. 1. Heard the learned counsel appearing on behalf of the Applicant and the learned counsel appearing on behalf of the Respondent No.4. 2. The grievance of the Applicant is that the Sessions Court has partly allowed the revision application filed by the Applicant and permitted him to transfer the amount of Rs.25,00,000.37 Ps. from the City Bank which is standing in the name of the accused- Respondent No.4 instead of the entire amount of Rs. 47,97,733/-. 2 (Cri appln 2165 of 2010) 3. Brief facts are that:- According to the Applicant, the Respondent No.4 was working as a driver in his company and misappropriated an amount of Rs.1.15 crores approximately by forging his signature and, thereafter, the said amount had illegally transferred in his bank in India viz. City Bank and I.C.I.C.I. Bank. The complaint was, therefore, filed. The said accounts were frozen and, thereafter, an application was made by the Applicant for return of the said money. The learned Magistrate rejected his application. The Sessions Court was partly allowed his application. 4. The learned counsel for the Applicant submitted that though he was allowed to withdraw the entire amount of Rs.40,76,753.23 Ps. which were lying in the account of the accused with the I.C.I.C.I. Bank. So far the other account of the accused in City Bank is concerned, he was permitted to withdraw only Rs. 25,00,000.37 Ps. He submitted that no reasons have been given for not permitting him to withdraw the entire amount. The learned counsel for the Applicant submitted that he is ready to give bank guarantee and 3 (Cri appln 2165 of 2010) also an undertaking for withdrawing the amount to the Trial Court that he shall bring the said amount as and when called for by the learned Magistrate. 5. The learned counsel for the Respondent No.4 submitted that if the bank guarantee and undertaking is given, he has no objection to transfer the amount directly from the account of the Accused -Respondent No.4 to the account of the Applicant. 6. The Apex Court in the case of Sunderbhai Ambalal Desai v. State of Maharashtra [AIR 2003 Supreme Court 638], has observed that “the owner is entitled to get the the seized amount for his own use and he cannot be deprived from his legal right of utilizing his own amount for his daily requirement.” In view of the ratio of the judgment laid down by the Apex Court in the said case, in my view, the Applicant is entitled to get the entire amount which is lying in the account of the accused subject to certain conditions being imposed. 7. The order passed by the Sessions Court is partly modified. The balance amount of Rs.23,82,675.48 be 4 (Cri appln 2165 of 2010) transferred by the bank from the account of the accused to the account of the Applicant in the Bank of HSBC Bank. Liberty is granted to again apply for return of cash and jewellery in the Trial Court after three months. The Applicant shall give a bank guarantee for the amount of Rs.23,82,675.48 and also an undertaking to the Trial Court that he shall bring the balance amount as and when called by the Trial Court. The application is allowed and disposed of in the aforesaid terms. (V.M. KANADE J.)