Disposed

Mr.Chaitanya Prakash Audichya. v. State/Cbi/Goa, through Its Public Prosecutor.

Bombay HC15 Apr 2015CRMA/72/2015

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The High Court at Goa disposed of a criminal miscellaneous application for release of seized properties and defreezing bank accounts. By consent, the matter was held open for the Special Judge to decide upon hearing parties.

What did the court decide?

Application disposed by consent; matter remanded to Special Judge for decision on hearing parties.

Mr.Chaitanya Prakash Audichya. Vs State/Cbi/Goa, through… — Property and Title | Bombay HC (2015)

¶1

IN THE HIGH COURT OF BOMBAY AT GOA

¶2

CRIMINAL MISC. APPLICATION NO. 72 OF 2015

¶3

¶4

CRIMINAL APPEAL NO. 42 OF 2014

¶5

MR.CHAITANYA PRAKASH AUDICHYA. Versus STATE/CBI/GOA, THROUGH ITS PUBLIC PROSECUTOR.

¶6

... Respondent

¶7

Mr. Ryan Da Piedade Menezes, Advocate for the applicant/appellant. Mr. J. Vaz, Special Public Prosecutor for the respondent.

¶8

Coram:C. V. BHADANG, J.

¶9

Date:15th April, 2015

¶10

P.C.

¶11

Heard Shri Menezes, the learned Counsel for the applicant/ appellant and Shri Vaz, the learned Special Public Prosecutor for the respondent.

¶12

The applicant has been convicted for the offence punishable under Section 13(1)(e) read with Section 13(2) of Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988 and sentenced to undergo Imprisonment for two years and to pay fine of Rs.50,000/- and in default, to undergo Simple Imprisonment for six months, which is the subject matter of challenge in Criminal Appeal No.42/2014.

¶13

Criminal Miscellaneous Application no.72/2015 is filed with a prayer that all the properties of the appellant/ applicant, seized/ attached during the course of investigation, be released and returned to the applicant and all the Bank accounts of the applicant with

¶14

CRMA/72/2015

¶15

¶16

various Banks, be defrozen.

¶17

It is submitted that similar application is filed before the learned Special Judge. However, no orders could be obtained thereon as the matter was pending before this Court in appeal.

¶18

Reply filed by the respondent shows that it has no objection for granting relief.

¶19

However, it is the common submission that the documents seized are before the learned Special Judge and the learned Special Judge would be in a better position to pass appropriate orders, imposing appropriate conditions, having regard to pendency of Criminal Appeal.

¶20

In such circumstances, by consent, the application is disposed of. It will be open for the learned Special Judge to decide the application filed by the appellant/ applicant, on hearing the parties, in accordance with law.

¶21

The parties to act on an authenticated copy of this order.

¶22

C. V. BHADANG, J.

¶23

SMA

Mr.Chaitanya Prakash Audichya. v. State/Cbi/Goa, through Its Public Prosecutor.

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Mr.Chaitanya Prakash Audichya. v. State/Cbi/Goa, through Its Public Prosecutor.

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

What the court decided

A compact analysis

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Shri Rajendra Pangam Vs Shri Paresh B. Naik and Anr.

Ms. Deborah Mary Crasto Leclerc, Vs Patrick Oliver Leclerc

Ms. Deborah Mary Crasto Leclerc, Vs Patrick Oliver Leclerc

Shri. Manguesh Singbal, Proprietor of Singbal Associates Rep. by His Wife Smt. Rupa M. Singbal. Vs State Thr Pp and Anr.

Smt. Laxmi Anil Salgaocar and 3 Ors., Vs Mahabaleshwar R . Hegde and 3 Ors.

Mr. Nitin Satish Naik Vs Mr. Nilu Sundar Naik and Anr.