1 BEFORE THE MADURAI BENCH OF MADRAS HIGH COURT DATED : 28.06.2011 CORAM THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE M.SATHYANARAYANAN Crl.R.C.(MD) No.328 of 2011 State represented by Deputy Superintendent of Police, EOW II, Madurai. ... Revision Petitioner/Complainant Vs. 1.S.Ghouse Sardar Hussain 2.S.Ghouse Yahoob Hussain ... Respondent/A3 & A4 Prayer: Criminal Revision Case is filed under Sections 397 read with 401 of the Criminal Procedure Code, praying to call for the records in Crl.M.Ps.No.394/2010, 395/2010 dated 18.03.2011 filed by accused No.3 - Ghouse Sardar Hussain and accused No.A4 - Ghouse Yahoob Hussain on the file of Court of Special Judge, TNPID Court, Madurai and to set aside the same. For petitioner : Mr.P.Kandasamy Government Advocate (Crl. Side) For Respondents : Mr.Thirumalairajan,Senior Advocate for Mr.S.Thirupathy ORDER By consent, the Criminal Revision Case itself is taken up for final disposal. 2. The respondents are arrayed as accused Nos.3 and 4 in Crime No.28 of 2010 registered by the revision petitioner herein for the alleged commission of offences under Sections 406, 420, 120(b) IPC read with Section 5 of TNPID Act. 3. The sum and substance of the allegations made against the accused Nos.3 and 4/respondents 1 and 2 are that the they had cheated depositors under the guise of selling Thirukkural Books and giving suitable returns to them and in that process collected roughly Rs.65,00,00,000/- (Rupees Sixty Five Crores only) from 45,500 depositors. 4. The first respondent/A3 herein filed Crl.M.P.No.395 of 2010 for interim custody of immovable property bearing door No.B3/7C, Rathinasamy Nadar Road, Vishal Jagadesh Apartments, Madurai - 2 and the second respondent/A4 filed Crl.M.P.No.394 of 2010 for the interim custody of immovable property bearing door No.A3/7C, Rathinasamy Nadar Road, Vishal Jagadesh Apartments, Madurai - 2 stating that in violation of Sections 3, 4 and 7 of TANPID Act and Sections 103 and 165 of Cr.P.C., the Economic Offences Wing officials had sealed the premises in which A3 and A4 were residing. https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/hcservices/ 2 5. The prosecution has filed counters opposing the said petitions by contending that due to the fraudulent act of Accused Nos.3 and 4, 45,500 depositors have been cheated to the tune of Rs.65 Crores and in the event of immovable properties being handed over to the custody of the accused, there is every possibility of the said property being alienated or encumbered by the accused Nos.3 and 4 and the said property will also be misused by them for illegal purpose. 6. The Special Court for TNPID Court taking into consideration the averments made in the petitions and counter, had ordered the petitions by orders dated 18.03.2011, ordering the interim custody of the property in favour of A3 and A4 subject to certain conditions. The State aggrieved by the said order, preferred this Criminal Revision Case against the said order. 7. Though two separate orders came to be passed in Crl.M.P.Nos.394 and 395 of 2010, the State has preferred only one revision in Crl.R.C. (MD) No.328 of 2011 and therefore, this Court taking into consideration the facts and circumstances treat this Crl.R.C.(MD) No.328 of 2011 as one preferred against the order made in Crl.M.P.No.394 of 2010. In respect of the order dated 18.03.2011 made in Crl.M.P.No.395 of 2010, this Court in exercise of its revisional jurisdiction suo motu take the revision on file, as the reasons assigned in both the orders are almost identical. 8. A perusal of the impugned order would disclose that the procedures contemplated under Sections 3, 4 and 7 of TNPID Act and Sections 103 and 165 of Cr.P.C. have not been followed and complied with and consequently, the premises in question have been sealed. It is settled position of law that the right to property is a constitutional right and such right can be deprived only by way of recourse to due process of law and admittedly, the procedures contemplated have not been followed and complied with by the revision petitioner and to that extent, this Court is of the view that the impugned orders passed by the Court below is sustainable. 9. The Special Court while passing the above said order, also gone into the merits of the case and gave a finding that there is no evidence to show that the 4th accused was employed as Manager or Director in the concern. In the considered opinion of the Court, such a finding is not warranted as the adjudication is yet to be done. Therefore, the findings in this regard made by the Special Court, are expunged. 10. The Special Court while ordering the interim custody, had also given sufficient protection to the interest of the State as well as to the depositors. 11. This Court on taking into consideration the rival submissions and on perusal and careful appreciation of the materials available on record is of the view that there is no illegality or perversity or error apparent on the face of the record in the impugned order passed by the lower Court. https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/hcservices/ 3 12. In the result, the Criminal Revision Cases are dismissed subject to the following conditions: (i) Accused Nos.3 and 4 on getting the custody of the respective properties shall not alienate or encumber it. (ii) Accused Nos.3 and 4 shall not alter the physical features of the properties. (iii) Accused Nos.3 and 4 shall not lease out the properties in favour of third parties and they shall use it only for residential purposes. (iv) As and when the attachment order is passed by the competent authorities in respect of the said properties, accused Nos.3 and 4, shall hand over custody of the possession to the revision petitioner / State. (v) If accused Nos.3 and 4 violates any one of the above conditions, it is always open to the revision petitioner/State to take appropriate steps including invocation of the provisions of Contempt of Courts Act. Sd/- Deputy Registrar(LA) /TRUE COPY/ Assistant Registrar To: 1.The Special Judge, Special Court for TNPID Act,Madurai. 2.The Deputy Superintendent of Police, Economic Offences Wing - II, Madurai. 3.The Public Prosecutor, Madurai Bench of Madras High Court, Madurai. +1cc to Mr.S.Thirupathy, Advocate SR.No.20484 Crl.R.C.(MD) No.328 of 2011 sj PA/08.07.2011/3P/5C https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/hcservices/