Engineering Export Promotion Council vs Usha Anand & Anr

2. The facts which are essential to be exposited are that the husband of the Ist respondent, late Yash Pal Anand, was a merchant exporter of automotive components and was carrying on business in the name and style of M/s. Anand Craft Centre. The Central Bureau of Investigation (CBI) registered six cases against him for offences punishable under Sections 420, 468/471 of the Indian Penal Code (for short “IPC”) in the year 1994. Identical cases of equal numbers were registered against his brothers, namely, Ashok, Satish and Subhash. The allegations against the four accused persons are not required to be stated because the controversy pertains to a different realm altogether. As the factual matrix would demonstrate, late Yash Pal Anand had deposited a sum of Rs.22 lakhs with Engineering Export Promotion Council (EEPC), a channelising industry under the Ministry of Commerce. Other three brothers had also deposited the sum with the said agency. The trial continued in different cases against all the four brothers and, eventually, Ashok, Satish and Subhash were acquitted in all the cases by the trial court which extended them the benefit of doubt. As far as the husband of the Ist respondent is concerned, he expired before the conclusion of the trial and, therefore, the trial stood abated against him. Against the judgment of acquittal of the three brothers CBI preferred appeals which were dismissed on 27.5.2002 and no appeal was preferred assailing the judgment of affirmation of acquittal. Thereafter, they claimed refund of the amount by filing requisite applications before the learned trial Judge who, by order dated 13.8.2001, directed refund of the amount. The reason ascribed by the trial court for refund was that the said sum was deposited by the accused persons in compliance of the conditions of the bail order and it was clearly stated that the accused persons had deposited the money without prejudice to their rights and as they had been acquitted, they were entitled to refund of the money deposited with the EEPC.

3. As the amount was not refunded despite the order passed by the trial court, one of the brothers preferred Cri.M. (M) No. 3541 of 2001 before the High Court which passed an order directing the present appellant to refund the amount. The relevant part of the order dated 5.10.2001 passed in Crl. M. (M) No. 3541 of 2001 is as follows: -

4. Thereafter, the 1st respondent filed Crl. M. (M) No. 3009 of 2003 with a prayer to command the respondent No. 2, the appellant herein, to refund the amount of Rs.22 lakhs on the ground that she was the sole legal heir; that the allegations in all the cases were identical without any exception; that the trial court had allowed the applications for refund vide order dated 13.8.2001 in respect of other brothers; that as the order passed by the trial court was not complied with, one of the brothers had filed Crl. M. (M) No. 3541 of 2001 before the High Court which was disposed of by order dated 5.10.2001 directing the respondent to refund the deposited amount within two weeks; that as the trial against the husband had abated, she had not been able to move the application earlier; that after the termination of the trial she had approached the officers of the respondent but despite the earlier direction by this Court and they being under legal obligation to refund the amount, tremendous apathy was shown and money was not refunded; and that no response was given to the legal notice and, therefore, she was entitled to refund of the deposited sum.

5. The High Court entertained the application preferred by the 1st respondent and passed the following order on 3.12.2003: -

Since in this case also respondent No. 2 has been served the same order needs to be passed. The amount deposited by the petitioner shall now be returned to the petitioner within a period of two weeks from today.”

Kindly accept this sum of Rs. 7,40,000.00 under protest and acknowledge.

We are already made 13% amount vide Banker’s Cheque No. 198878 dt. 25.8.94 of Rs. 3,60,000.00 issued by Canara Bank, New Delhi and now total amount paid 40% (Rs. 11,00,000.00) We are at present in serious financial constraint, therefore, the balance left over amount may not be deposited by us immediately. But however the remaining sum should be deposited in the course of the time as intimated to you from time to time.

In view of the above you are requested to also kindly inform immediately to the special investigation branch (CBI) not to take measure against us.

We assure you that we will fully co-operate with you from time to time and further assure you that the entire sum as become payable by us shall be paid with.” [Emphasis added]

In view of the above you are requested to also kindly inform immediately to the special investigation branch (CBI) not to take measure against us.” [Emphasis supplied]

21. Consequently, the appeal is allowed, the order passed by the High Court is set aside and liberty is granted to appellant to approach the High Court by way of writ petition. If a writ petition is filed, the same shall be dealt with on merits. Needless to emphasise, all contentions relating to liability, entitlement for refund and all other aspects are kept open as we have not expressed any opinion on any count except the jurisdictional facet. There shall be no order as to costs.

May 29, 2013