IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA Cr. Misc. No.6513 of 2009 NARAYAN MISHRA, S/O LATE KRISHNA CHANDRA MISHRA, R/O 36, VED NAGAR, RUKANPURA, P.S. DANAPUR, DISTRICT PATNA 800 014 .. PETITIONER Versus 1. THE STATE OF BIHAR THROUGH THE CHIEF SECRETARY, GOVERNMENT OF BIHAR, Patna 2. PRINCIPAL SECRETARY, HOME DEPARTMENT, GOVERNMENT OF BIHAR, PATNA 3. INSPECTOR GENERAL OF POLICE, SPECIAL VIGILANCE UNIT, PATNA 4. SUPRINTENDENT OF POLICE, SPECIAL VIGILANCE UNIT, PATNA .. RESPONDENTS **** /7/ 15.12.2010 Heard the counsel for the petitioner, who is appearing in person, the Vigilance and the State. 2. This is a petition for quashing the order, dated 16.10.2008, passed by Special judge, Vigilance, I, Patna, in Special Case No. 6 of 2007, by which the petitioner’s petition for releasing of the HUF Account No. 5401000086030 and related Demat Account No. 19079838 with H.D.F.C. Bank has been disposed off with a direction that the petitioner may sell off the shares with the aforesaid demat account and deposit the sale proceeds in fixed deposit scheme in any nationalized bank at Patna and also to deposit it’s receipt in the Court under intimation to the investigating officer. 3. The grievance of the petitioner is that though he was 2 allowed to operate the account, but, was not allowed to take the money and it was ordered to operate the same on keeping the entire balance of the said bank account. 4. However, from the perusal of the record it appears that a case has been lodged against the petitioner for offence under Section 13(1)(2) of the Prevention of Corruption Act with a charge of having earned property disproportionate to his known source of income while the petitioner was in serviced. After lodging of the case raid was conducted and several properties seized. 5. However, the petitioner filed a petition on 20.02.2008 at the stage of investigation, for release of the money with respect to the HUF account no. 54401000086030 and related demat account no. 19079838 which he alleged to have been inherited by him out of the income of his father as several N.S.C. certificates matured from 1986 to 1997 as well money obtained by sale of land and agricultural land in confined form the sale proceed of agricultural proceeds what he inherited as well as salary account. It is alleged that the seizure of account has caused petitioner incurring loss in view of the down fall of the sensex. 6. On the petition the Special Court by it’s order, which 3 has been impugned, allowed the petitioner to sell the share and deposit the sale proceeds in any nationalized bank and directed to deposit it’s receipt in the Court under the information to the investigating officer and, further, directed to operate the account that H.D.F.C. Bank keeping it’s balance intact in the account. 7. The learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the said account is his HUF property which has been inherited from his father. It has been asserted that these amount was invested in N.S.C. by his father which matured in 1988, 1989, 1990, 1992, 1994, 1996 and 1997 as well as by sale proceeds of the ancestral land as well as agricultural income from ancestral land, hence, is neither his individual nor alleged disproportionate income and since it is exclusive income from the joint family and property inherited from father, hence, that account may be released as he has his right to property and right to trade and those properties earned by investing in share his HUF income and can not be subjected to seizure on the ground that it is property disproportionate to him known source of income and has given a list to show that description of Rs.4.43 lacs was invested by his father on maturity of his N.S.C. on his saving by income from Hindu Undivided Family. 8. The learned counsel for the Vigilance and State, 4 however, submit that the petitioner claims that N.S.C. matured in the years 1988, 1989, 1991, 1992, 1994, 1996 and 1997 which was invested by his father out of saving from agricultural land income, but, the said Hindu Undivided Family account opened in the year 2000 and money deposited, thereafter , but, not mentioned from where not disclosed that where this amount was kept after it’s maturity on the respective year and unless it is disclosed when the amount matured by N.S.C. or saving from agricultural land kept for these number of years the amount can not be the HUF property but deemed to be a property for making false claim for unaccounted money 9. Hence, for question for consideration whether the alleged release of the account in H.D.F.C. bank bearing A/C no. 5401000086030 and it’s dematting account bearing no. 19079838 required to be released as HUF property. 10. Hence, taking into consideration the respective submissions of the parties it is stated that the money deposited in the year 2000 is claimed to be the money received as N.S.C. matured in the name of his father in the years 1988, 1989, 1991, 1992, 1994, 1996 and 1997, which is mentioned in enclosure of Annexure 3 of the petition and also gave the description of the other HUF receipts which encashed in 1993, 1994 and the other 5 fixed deposits and sale proceeds of the land and the case receipt after the agriculture income to the tune of Rs.7,49,000/-. However, the petitioner claims that the amount deposited in the HUF account are as per the amount mentioned in Annexure 3 or enclosure 1 of the petition. However, all the money has been stated to be encashed in between 1988 to 1997 periodically and it is stated that these money were rotating and this money was, in fact, deposited in the HUF account opened in the year 2000. However, allegations are made that during the period 1986 to 2007 the petitioner earned by unknown source of income. It is not disputed that the account opened in the year 2000 and money was deposited in 2000, it has come in investigation that the money deposited in the year 2000 within a span of six months. The petitioner claims that the money deposited is his money which he inherited from his father by maturity of N.S.C. certificates from 1988 to 1997 to him. However, the petitioner is unable to disclose where he has kept those money right from it’s maturity in between 1988 to 1997 and when the petitioner is unable to disclose where he has kept these money then his vague reply that it was his HUF property in rotation is not acceptable for release of the money on ground of his HUF property when allegation is of earning disproportionate to his 6 known source of income. 11. Learned counsel for the Vigilance, however, submits that law has been enacted as the Bihar Special Courts Act, 2009, and come into force and step has been taken for confiscation of the property of the petitioner. However, in the petition or counter affidavit there is no averment of such fact. 12. Hence, under the facts and circumstances, at present, it is not proper to allow the petition to release the alleged HUF Account in demat Account to the petitioner or interfered with the impugned order. Hence, the petition is hereby dismissed. S.A. ( Gopal Prasad, J.)