Allowed

Ashok Kumar Purwar v. the Superintendent of Police and Anr.

Bombay HC20 Mar 2018APPA/1627/2017

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

In an appeal, this court allowed an application by an appellant convicted under the Prevention of Corruption Act for the return of security bonds held by the CBI. The court observed that the trial judge had previously directed their release as non-ill-gotten assets. Because the prosecuting agency could not deposit the funds to stay the order, the court directed the return of the bonds.

What did the court decide?

The five (5) ICICI Tax Free Bonds and two (2) Government of India Relief Bonds be returned to the present applicant/accused no.1.

Ashok Kumar Purwar Vs the Superintendent of Police and Anr. — Corruption | Bombay HC (2018)

¶1

13-APPA-1627-2017.doc

¶2

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY

¶3

CRIMINAL APPELLATE JURISDICTION

¶4

CRIMINAL APPLICATION NO.1627 OF 2017 IN CRIMINAL APPEAL NO.634 OF 2015

¶5

ASHOK KUMAR PURWAR )...APPLICANT

¶6

V/s.

¶7

THE SUPERINTENDENT OF POLICE ) A.C.B., C.B.I., MUMBAI AND ANR. )...RESPONDENTS

¶8

Mr.Ravi Gurnani a/w. Ms.Deepali Prabhu-Khanolkar, Advocate for the Applicant.

¶9

Ms.Ameeta Kuttikrishnan, Advocate for the Respondent / CBI.

¶10

Ms.Anamika Malhotra, APP for the Respondent - State.

¶11

CORAM : A. M. BADAR, J.

¶12

DATE : 20^th MARCH 2018

¶13

P.C. :

¶14

1 This is an application for return of movable assets in

¶15

the form of five (5) ICICI Tax Free Bonds and two (2) Government

¶16

of India Relief Bonds having estimated value of Rs.1.10 lakh and

¶17

Rs.1 lakh respectively, as on the date of the investment.

¶18

avk 1/4

¶19

13-APPA-1627-2017.doc

¶20

2 Heard the learned counsel appearing for the applicant/accused no.1. He drew my attention to Clause (6) of the Operative Order passed by the learned Special Judge for the CBI in Sessions Case No.56 of 2005 and submitted that these movable assets, which are in the form of securities, need to be returned to the present applicant/accused no.1, as they are not forming the part of the ill-gotten assets and the learned trial court had already directed for return of these securities to the present applicant/accused no.1.

¶21

3 The learned Advocate appearing for the prosecuting agency i.e. CBI has opposed the application by submitting that these securities may have ultimate bearing on the disposal of the appeal, and therefore, those may not be released in favour of the applicant/accused no.1.

¶22

4 I have carefully considered the rival submissions and also perused the impugned judgment and order passed by the

¶23

avk 2/4

¶24

13-APPA-1627-2017.doc

¶25

learned Special Judge for the CBI in Sessions Case no.56 of 2005, whereby, he has convicted the present applicant/accused no.1 of offences punishable under Sections 13(1)(e) read with 13(2) of the Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988. The assets found to be disproportionate to known source of income of the present applicant/accused no.1 were directed to be confiscated to the State in exercise of powers under Section 452 of the Code of Criminal Procedure read with Section 16 of the Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988. However, the securities mentioned in this application are directed to be released/returned in favour of the accused persons from whom those are seized vide Clause No.(6) of the operative portion of the order dated 8^th May 2015.

¶26

5 As the learned Advocate for the prosecuting agency i.e. the CBI has opposed this application, an option was given to her to deposit the total value of these securities in the Registry of this court, so as to enable this court to keep that amount in Fixed deposit. However, the learned Advocate appearing for the prosecuting agency i.e. the CBI has expressed the inability of the

¶27

avk 3/4

¶28

13-APPA-1627-2017.doc

¶29

prosecuting agency to deposit this amount, in order to enable the court to balance the equities.

¶30

6 Considering the fact that the movable assets sought to be released are already directed to be returned to the applicant/accused no.1 by the learned trial court, as they are not forming the part of assets exceeding known sources of income of the present applicant/accused no.1, the application deserves to be allowed, and therefore, the order :

¶31

ORDER

¶32

i) The five (5) ICICI Tax Free Bonds and two (2) Government

¶33

of India Relief Bonds be returned to the present applicant/accused no.1 on furnishing photostat copies thereof on the record, in order to enable the applicant/accused no.1 to realize the maturity value of those securities.

¶34

ii) The application is disposed of accordingly.

¶35

avk 4/4

Ashok Kumar Purwar v. the Superintendent of Police and Anr.

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Ashok Kumar Purwar v. the Superintendent of Police and Anr.

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

What the court decided

A compact analysis

Issues for consideration

Statutes considered

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Johny @ John David Sheri Vs the State of Maharashtra

Pyarelal Shridhar Keer @ Pahalwan Vs Davinder Singh and Anr.

Johny @ John David Sheri Vs the State of Maharashtra

Vilas S/O Shiwaji Pawar and Ors. Vs the State of Maharashtra

Chhaya Ashok Kumar Purwar Vs the Superintendent of Police and Anr.

Santoshkumar Shrijaylal Roy Vs the State of Maharashtra