IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE THOMAS P.JOSEPH MONDAY, THE 31ST JANUARY 2011 / 11TH MAGHA 1932 Crl.MC.No. 169 of 2011() ------------------------ CMP.3322/2010 of JUDICIAL FIRST CLASS MAGISTRATE COURT-II, ALUVA CRIME NO.2257/2010 OF KALAMASSERY POLICESTATION .................... PETITIONER(S)/PETITIONERS: --------------- 1. NAVADHANYAM FARMS & PLANTATIONS PVT.LTD,EDAPPALLY, ERNAKULAM,DISTRICT REP.BY ITS MANAGING DIRECTOR, SMT USHA, AGED 57 YEARS, W/O.CHANDRAN 2. USHA, AGED 57 YEARS, W/O.CHANDRAN VELLUTHEDATH HOSUE,PARUTHELI BRIDGE PUTHIPPALLIPRAM, THRIKKAKARA NORTH ERNAKULAM DISTRICT BY ADV. SRI.C.C.THOMAS, SENIOR ADVOCATE SRI.NIREESH MATHEW SRI.M.G.KARTHIKEYAN RESPONDENT(S)/RESPONDENTS/COMPLAINANT: --------------- 1. STATE OF KERALA REP.BY S.I.OF POLICE KALAMASSERY POLICE STATION,ERNAKULAM DISTRICT REP.BY PUBLIC PROSECUTOR,HIGH COURT OF KERALA ERNAKULAM 2. THE MANAGER, AXIX BANK LTD, ALUVA BRANCH 3. THE MANAGER, IDBI BANK, ERNAKULAM (*)ADDL.RESPONDENT NOS.4 TO 10: 4. BASHEER M., STAR APARTMENTS, ERNAKULAM, KERALA 682301. 5. MOHAMMAD HIDAYATHULLA, THATTANODA HOUSE, LAKSHADWEEP, LAKHADWEEP 682552. CRL.MC NO.169/2011 2 6. BM THAHA, BIRIYAMMODA HOUSE, LAKSHADWEEP 682556. 7. NOORUDHEEN G., MIG 207, GANDI NAGAR, KAAVANTHRA, ERNAKULAM, KERALA 686020 8. ABDULRASAK KK, TOURISM OFFICER, LAKSHADWEEP OFFICE, WELLINGTON ISLAND, ERNAKULAM 682003. 9. AM HUSSIAN, ASST. DIRECTOR, TOURISM DPT., KAVARATHY, LAKSHADWEEP 682555. 10. JAMHAR KHAN K, KUNASHADA HOUSE, AMINI PO, LAKSHADWEEP 682552. (*)ADDL.RESPONDENT NOS.4 TO 10 ARE IMPLEADED AS PER ORDER DATED 31.01.2011 ON CRL.M.A. NO.522/2011. PUBLIC PROSECUTOR SHRI K.J.MOHAMMED ANZAR SRI.SHIJU VARGHESE (WAYANAD) FOR ADDL.R4 TO R10 SRI.JINU JOSEPH FOR ADDL.R4 TO R10 THIS CRIMINAL MISC. CASE HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 31/01/2011, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY PASSED THE FOLLOWING: THOMAS P. JOSEPH, J. -------------------------------------- Crl.M.C. No.169 of 2011 -------------------------------------- Dated this the 31st day of January, 2011. ORDER Annexure-D, order passed by the learned Judicial First Class Magistrate- II, Aluva on January 14, 2011 on C.M.P.No.3322 of 2010 in Crime No.2257 of 2010 of Kalamassery Police Station is under challenge in this petition. That is a case registered against petitioners and another for alleged violation of Section 3 of the Prize Chits and Money Circulation Scheme(Banning) Act, 1978 (for short, “the Act”) punishable under Section 4 of the said Act. In the course of investigation, money allegedly collected under the said scheme from various depositors was freezed on the request of the Police. Petitioners filed C.M.P.No.3322 of 2010 to lift the ban on the amount in deposit, under Section 451 read with Section 102 of the Code of Criminal Procedure (for short, “the Code”). That application was opposed by the Investigating Officer on various grounds and the learned Magistrate by Annexure-D, order has dismissed that application. It is contended by learned Senior Advocate appearing for petitioners that no offence as alleged is involved, there was no complaint from any depositor as to any malpractice in the matter and that the amount if kept idle in deposit, the scheme itself will be affected. Operation of the fund also will be affected. It is submitted that if necessary, petitioners would give an understanding that they will not transfer the property as part of the scheme. Alternatively it is contended that in case this Court is not inclined to allow the petition, the amount in deposit Crl.MC No.169/2011 2 may be returned to the unit purchasers. Learned Public Prosecutor submitted that the investigation is not completed and that crores of rupees is involved, having been collected from unit purchasers. It is also submitted that release of the amount would affect further investigation of the case. Learned counsel for additional respondent Nos.4 to 10, some of the unit purchasers submit that additional respondent Nos.4 to 10 have no objection in lifting the ban. 2. Question whether any offence is committed is a matter which is pending investigation and hence I do not intend to comment either way on that issue. Now the question is only whether the ban on operation of the amount (freezer of the account) has to be lifted. Learned Senior Advocate has placed reliance on the decision of the Supreme Court in Sunderbhai Ambalal Desai v. State of Gujarat (2003(2) KLT 1089) and contended that in a situation of this nature after taking sufficient precautions the amount could be released. But that is a case where guidelines were issued as to the release of material objects involved in the case. In the present case operation of the account itself according to the Investigating Officer, formed part of the alleged offence. In that situation I am not inclined to apply the decision referred to by learned Senior Advocate. It would appear that as per the scheme, money has been collected from several unit purchasers which runs into crores of ruppes. Having regard to the facts and circumstances of the case, I do not find reason to interfere with Annexure-D, order passed by the learned Magistrate and lift the ban. Crl.MC No.169/2011 3 3. So far as the alternative prayer made by petitioners whether the amount could be returned to the respective unit purchasers, that is a mater which the learned Magistrate has to decide if any application in that regard is preferred, after hearing the objection if any of the Investigating Officer. With the above observation this petition is dismissed. THOMAS P.JOSEPH, Judge. cks