IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE THOMAS P.JOSEPH WEDNESDAY, THE 12TH JANUARY 2011 / 22ND POUSHA 1932 Crl.MC.No. 5081 of 2010() ------------------------- CC.123/2010 of CHIEF JUDL.MAGISTRATE COURT, ERNAKULAM ................. PETITIONER : --------------------- TREASA LINCY ANTONY, AGED 37 YEARS, R/AT MUTTAMTHOTTIL HOUSE, PALLURUTHI, KOCHI-6. BY ADV. SRI.S.NIRMAL KUMAR RESPONDENT(S) : ------------------------- 1. STATE OF KERALA, REP.BY THE PUBLIC PROSECUTOR, HIGH COURT OF KERALA, ERNAKULAM 2. INSPECTOR OF POLICE, CBI SCB CHENNAI, (CRIME NO.R.C.3/S/2006 (CBI/SCB CHENNAI, REP. BY THE STANDING COUNSEL FOR CBI. R1 BY PUBLIC PROSECUTOR SMT. PUSHPALATHA R2 BY ADV. SRI.M.V.S.NAMBOOTHIRY, SC, C.B.I. THIS CRIMINAL MISC. CASE HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 12/01/2011, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY PASSED THE FOLLOWING: Mn THOMAS P.JOSEPH, J. ==================================== Crl. M.C. No. 5081 of 2010 ==================================== Dated this the 12th day of January, 2011 O R D E R Petitioner is the divorced wife of accused No.4. She is aggrieved by Annexure-A5, order passed by the learned Chief Judicial Magistrate, Ernakulam on Crl. M.P. No.4332 of 2010 in C.C. No.123 of 2010 of that court. There was an oral instruction from the CBI officials to the bank where money is in deposit in the name of the minor child to freeze the same on the allegation that investigation revealed that the property (by the sale of which amount was obtained and deposited in the bank) was purchased by accused No.4, former husband of the petitioner making use of the amount collected by cheating various persons. According to the petitioner she purchased the property as guardian for her minor child and later with the permission of learned Additional District Judge, Ernakulam in O.P(G&W) (Annexure-AI, order) sold the property and deposited sale proceeds with the Union Bank of India, Angamaly branch and later as per order of the learned District Judge she was withdrawing the interest in the Fixed Deposit payable to her minor child. It is while so, that she received Annexure-A4, letter from the bank stating that as per CRL.M.C. No.5081 of 2010 -: 2 :- instructions from the CBI officials account of the minor child (Achu) is freezed. Thereon petitioner approached the learned Chief Judicial Magistrate with Crl. M.P. No.4332 of 2010 for an order to lift the ban on the petitioner withdrawing interest from the Fixed Deposit. That petition was dismissed by the learned Chief Judicial Magistrate. Learned counsel submitted that petitioner had sufficient documents to prove the source of money for purchase of the property in the name of her minor child, Achu and since no opportunity was given to her and no enquiry was conducted by the learned Chief Judicial Magistrate she could not produce those documents. Learned Standing Counsel for the CBI submitted that investigation conducted so far revealed that accused including the former husband of petitioner cheated so many persons, collected large amount from them and a portion of that amount was utilized by the former husband of petitioner to acquire property in the name of their child and hence account of the minor child is to be freezed. 2. It is seen from Annexure-A5, order that the learned Chief Judicial Magistrate has not conducted any enquiry in the matter and instead referring to the objection of the CBI officials, disallowed the prayer of petitioner. If petitioner is able to show CRL.M.C. No.5081 of 2010 -: 3 :- that property was purchased with her own funds or traces sale consideration to some source other than as alleged by the CBI officials that is a matter which the learned Chief Judicial Magistrate has to take into consideration while considering the petition filed by the petitioner. Having heard both sides, I am inclined to grant opportunity to the parties to produce appropriate evidence in support of their respective contentions. Resultantly, Criminal Miscellaneous Case is allowed by way of remand. Annexure A5, order is set aside and Crl. M.P. No.4332 of 2010 is remitted to the court of learned Chief Judicial Magistrate, Ernakulam for fresh consideration and disposal in accordance with law after giving both sides opportunity to adduce evidence in support of their respective contentions. THOMAS P. JOSEPH, JUDGE. vsv