Dismissed

Rmp Infotech Private Limited v. State of Kerala

Kerala HC8 Jul 2013Crl.MC/2507/2013

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

A criminal miscellaneous petition was filed by an accused company to quash a bank freezing order citing a previous order to allow withdrawals for tax. The Court dismissed the plea, noting earlier procedural developments left the petitioner with no funds in the accounts and refusing relief to prevent account depletion given the severity of pending crimes.

What did the court decide?

Prayer to quash the freezing order of the petitioner's bank accounts was dismissed.

Rmp Infotech Private Limited Vs State… — Constitutional and Fundamental Rights | Kerala HC (2013)

¶1

IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM

¶2

PRESENT:

¶3

THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE V.K.MOHANAN

¶4

MONDAY, THE 8TH DAY OF JULY 2013/17TH ASHADHA, 1935

¶5

Crl.MC.No. 2507 of 2013 ()

¶6

AGAINST THE ORDER IN Crl.MC 588/2013 of HIGH COURT OF KERALA, DATED 08-04-2013

¶7

PETITIONER:

¶8

RMP INFOTEC PRIVATE LIMITED, HAVING ITS REGISTERED OFFICE AT 100/1ST FLOOR, APPOLO DUBAI PLAZA, NO.11, MAHALINGAPURAM MAIN ROAD, CHENNAI-600034, TAMILNADU, INDIA THROUGH M.S.CHALAPATHY, REGIONAL MANAGER, RMP INFOTEC PRIVATE LTD., 100/1ST FLOOR APPOLO DUBAI PLAZA, NO.100, MAHALINGAPURAM MAIN ROAD, CHENNAI-600034, TAMIL NADU, INDIA.

¶9

BY ADVS.SRI.ELVIN PETER P.J. SRI.T.G.SUNIL (PRANAVAM) SRI.K.R.GANESH

¶10

COMPLAINANT/RESPONDENT:

¶11

STATE OF KERALA, INSPECTOR OF POLICE CBCID (EOW-III), KOZHIKODE-673 004, REP. BY PUBLIC PROSECUTOR, HIGH COURT OF KERALA, ERNAKULAM, COCHIN-682 031.

¶12

BY ADGP, SRI.K.I.ABDUL RASHEED

¶13

THIS CRIMINAL MISC. CASE HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 08-07-2013, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY PASSED THE FOLLOWING:

¶14

Crl.MC.No. 2507 of 2013 ()

¶15

APPENDIX

¶16

PETITIONER'S ANNEXURES:

¶17

ANNEXURE A1: TRUE COPY OF LETTER DATED 23.5.2013 ISSUED BY THE RESPONDENT TO THE IDBI BANK LTD., BOMBAY BRANCH.

¶18

ANNEXURE A2: TRUE COPY OF DEMAND NOTICE DATED 20.5.2013 ISSUED BY ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX. ANNEXURE A3: TRUE COPY OF ORDER DATED 20.3.2012 IN CRL.M.P.NOS.10682 AND 10683 IN CRL.M.P.NO.9771/2011 OF THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE OF ANDHRA PRADESH.

¶19

ANNEXURE A4: TRUE COPY OF ORDER DATED 8.4.2013 IN CRL.M.C.NO.588/2013 OF THIS HON'BLE COURT.

¶20

RESPONDENT'S ANNEXURES:NIL.

/TRUE COPY/

P.A.TO JUDGE.

V.K.MOHANAN, J.

Crl.M.C.No.2507 of 2013

¶25

Dated this the 08^th day of July, 2013

¶26

ORDER

¶27

The petitioner company are accused in 13 crimes pending

¶28

in various Police Stations in the State of Kerala. Now all the cases are being investigated by Crime Branch (Economic Wing) of Kozhikode. The above crimes are registered against the petitioner and others for the offences punishable under Section 420 read with Section 34 of IPC and 3, 4, 5 and 6 of the Prize Chits and Money Circulation Scheme (Banning) Act, 1978. The present case of the petitioner is that, the petitioner company has to pay statutory tax demanded as per Annexure-A2. Therefore, the above Crl.M.C. is filed under Section 482 of Cr.P.C. with a prayer to quash Annexure-A1 to the extent it freezes the accounts of the petitioner company prohibiting the company from withdrawing the amounts required for meeting the tax liability.

¶29

Heard the learned counsel for the petitioner and the learned Additional Director General of Prosecution. I have

¶30

Crl.M.C.No.2507 of 2013

¶31

:-2-:

¶32

perused the documents produced along with the above Crl.M.C.

¶33

The learned counsel for the petitioner on the strength of the order passed by this Court vide Annexure-A4 order submitted that the petitioner is also entitled to get the relief as sought for and the prayer of the petitioner only to meet the demand made by the tax department as per Annexure-A2 demand. On the other hand, the learned Additional Director General of Prosecution has pointed out that the very same petitioner on an earlier occasion approached this Court by filing W.P.No.9047 of 2012 against Annexure-I order and along with Writ Petition they preferred I.A.No.5924 of 2012 with a prayer to pass interim order directing the respondent/officials to lift the freezing orders on the accounts mentioned in the table in the accompanying affidavit, pending final disposal of the Writ Petition and accordingly a learned Single Judge of this Court had passed an order directing the 3^rd respondent therein to issue orders lifting the freezing of bank accounts as mentioned in paragraph 3 of the affidavit on

¶34

Crl.M.C.No.2507 of 2013 :-3-:

¶35

condition that the petitioner furnishes a bank guarantee/guarantees from a nationalized bank for a like amount which has to be realised, in favour of the 3^rd respondent, undertaking to make available the said amount as and when called upon by the 3^rd respondent. Subsequently the respondent/State filed a petition to vacate that interim order which was allowed and against the said order the writ petitioner, who is the present petitioner in this Crl.M.C. preferred an appeal i.e., W.A.No.973 of 2013. Thus, a Division Bench of this Court by a detailed order dated 13/08/2012 in W.P.(C)No.9047 of 2012 the petitioner herein were furnished details as to how settlements were made with all the persons referred to in the F.I. Statements supporting the F.I.Rs. in all the cases produced in this Court, and also the details of goods supplied and payments made with details of cheques to each and everyone named in the FI statements. It is made clear that, the details of cash settlements and supply of goods made not only with regard to the complainants but also to other persons who have been enrolled through them and others in

¶36

Crl.M.C.No.2507 of 2013

¶37

:-4-:

¶38

the chain of transactions referred to in all the FI statements, should be furnished. Both the learned counsel for the petitioners and Additional Director General of Prosecution submitted that, subsequently by order dated 26/06/2012 in W.A.No.973 of 2012 the same closed, leaving open the appellants' right to raise all contentions in the Writ Petition. The learned Additional Director General of Prosecution submitted that, after the above orders, the petitioner, who is the accused in the above criminal case are not available for even questioning them.

¶39

The learned counsel for the petitioner as I indicated earlier on the basis of Annexure-A4 order submitted that, the petitioner herein is also entitled to get the similar treatment.

¶40

I am unable to sustain the above contention. It appears that Annexure-A4 order has passed on 08/04/2013. But another learned Single Judge of this Court passed an order dated 20/04/2012 in I.A.No.5924 of 2012 in W.P.(C)No.9047 of 2012 upon the Writ Petition moved by the petitioner on 20/04/2012, but the very same learned Single Judge who

¶41

Crl.M.C.No.2507 of 2013

¶42

:-5-:

¶43

initially passed an order in favour of the petitioner, vacated the said order which order when challenged a Division Bench of this Court passed an order dated 13/08/2012. It is thereafter the petitioner withdrawn the above Writ Appeal.

¶44

As pointed out by the Additional Director General of Prosecution Annexure-A4 is with respect to some other company. But in the case of the petitioner there are procedural and legal development in the light of the orders which I referred to above and that too upon the Writ Petition and Writ Appeal filed by the petitioner herein. Therefore, this Court will not be justified in passing an order following Annexure-A4 order. It is also relevant to note that, if the petitioner is permitted to withdraw the amount from the frozen accounts, as and when demands are made on one or another ground, at appropriate time they will not be any amount in the account of the petitioner. In this juncture, it is relevant to note that the petitioner if want to meet the demand raised by the statutory authorities, it is for them to find out source to meet such demand and this Court will not be justified in permitting

¶45

Crl.M.C.No.2507 of 2013

¶46

:-6-:

¶47

the petitioner to withdraw the amount considering the seriousness of the allegations and number of cases pending against them. Therefore, there is no merit in this Crl.M.C and accordingly the same is dismissed.

¶48

V.K.MOHANAN, JUDGE

¶49

skj

¶50

True copy P.A. to Judge

Rmp Infotech Private Limited v. State of Kerala

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Rmp Infotech Private Limited v. State of Kerala

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

What the court decided

A compact analysis

Issues for consideration

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Shajahan Vs State of Kerala

Nazer Vs Ashokkumar

P.Rahim Vs E.P.Jayarajan

Sukumaran Vs State of Kerala

P.K. Koyakutty Vs the State of Kerala

Basil Vs State of Kerala