Partly allowed

Puthen Veedu Bhaskaran Sourabhan, v. Central Bureau of Investigation

Kerala HC3 Jul 2019Crl.MC/4086/2019

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The High Court allowed a writ petition under Section 482 Cr.P.C. modifying a trial court order that froze the petitioners debenture accounts due to corruption prosecution. The Court permitted withdrawal of accrued interest containing pensionary benefits without penalizing the petitioner, and reduced the bond requirement from Rs.60 lakhs to Rs.30 lakhs each.

What did the court decide?

To permit the petitioner to withdraw the entire amount of interest accrued on the deposits and to reduce the required bond to Rs.30 lakhs each.

Puthen Veedu Bhaskaran Sourabhan, Vs Central Bureau of… — Cheque Dishonour | Kerala HC (2019)

¶1

IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM

¶2

PRESENT

¶3

THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE P.UBAID

¶4

WEDNESDAY, THE 03RD DAY OF JULY 2019 / 12TH ASHADHA, 1941

¶5

Crl.MC.No.4086 of 2019

¶6

AGAINST THE ORDER/JUDGMENT IN CRMP 73/2019 of SPE/CBI COURT, TRIVANDRUM DATED 14-05-2019

¶7

PETITIONER/PETITIONER/ACCUSED NO.1:

¶8

PUTHEN VEEDU BHASKARAN SOURABHAN, AGED 62 YEARS S/O.LATE P.K.BHASKARAN, RETIRED GOVERNMENT SERVANT, THE THEN DEPUTY DIRECTOR

¶9

(ADMINISTRATION),

¶10

SREE CHITRA THIRUNAL INSTITUTE FOR MEDICAL SCIENCES AND TECHNOLOGY, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM, PUTHEN VEEDU, AVOLIKUZHI (P.O.), ELIMULLUMPLAKKAL, KONNY, PATHANAMTHITTA DISTRICT, NOW RESIDING AT SANNIDHANAM, HOUSE NO.CRA 253, CHENTHY, PONGUMOODU, MEDICAL COLLEGE (P.O.), THIRUVANANTHAPURAM.

¶11

BY ADVS. SRI.R.BINDU (SASTHAMANGALAM) SRI.PRASANTH M.P

¶12

RESPONDENT/RESPONDENT/COMPLAINANT:

¶13

CENTRAL BUREAU OF INVESTIGATION, REPRESENTED BY THE SUPERINTENDENT OF POLICE, ACB BRANCH, KATHRIKADAVU, ERNAKULAM, KOCHI - 682 017.

¶14

OTHER PRESENT:

¶15

SRI SASTHAMANGALAM S AJITHKUMAR-SC CBI

¶16

THIS CRIMINAL MISC. CASE HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 03.07.2019, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY PASSED THE FOLLOWING:

¶17

Crl.MC.No.4086 of 2019

¶18

-2-

¶19

O R D E R

¶20

The petitioner herein is the first accused

¶21

in C.C. No. 3 of 2015 of the Special Court (Spe/CBI), Thiruvananthapuram, and the second accused is his wife. They have been facing prosecution under Section 13(1)(e) read with Section 13(2) of the Prevention of Corruption Act. Some debenture accounts in the name of the petitioner and his near relatives with Muthoot Finance Private Limited, Pathanamthitta, were frozen on the request of the prosecuting agency (CBI) during investigation. The debentures cover a total amount of Rs.38 lakhs. The petitioner made application before the court below as Crl.M.P. No. 73 of 2019 to defreeze the accounts so that he could withdraw the amounts including the pensionary benefits received by him on retirement. By order dated 14.05.2019, the learned trial Judge allowed

¶22

Crl.MC.No.4086 of 2019

¶23

-3-

¶24

the request on certain conditions. As per the order, the trial court directed the petitioner to withdraw all the deposits from the Muthoot Finance Private Limited, and to deposit the amounts in turn, in a nationalised bank as fixed deposit. The trial court also ordered that the petitioner shall not be entitled to receive interest on the fixed deposit amount in case of confiscation of the said amount. The petitioner is also directed as a condition, to execute a bond for Rs.60 lakhs each with two solvent sureties. After making the fixed deposits in the nationalised bank, he will have to produce the fixed deposit receipts in court. Aggrieved by the said order, the petitioner has approached this Court under Section 482 Cr.P.C.

¶25

2. The petition shows that the actual grievance of the petitioner is regarding the order of the trial court that he is not entitled to receive interest on the fixed deposit amount.

¶26

Crl.MC.No.4086 of 2019

¶27

-4-

¶28

3. As directed by this Court, the petitioner has filed a statement regarding the amount he received as pensionary benefits on retirement. The total amount thus received by him is about Rs.38 lakhs, and the total amount covered by the debentures with the Muthoot Finance Private Limited is 38 lakhs. On maturity, he will get a total amount of Rs.76 lakhs, including interest. No doubt, the lion's share in the amount in deposit with the Muthoot Finance Private Limited is the pensionary benefits received by the petitioner. These include Provident Fund savings, Death cum Retirement Gratuity, commutation value of pension, and also the amount received on surrender of earned leave. When it is an undisputable fact that the petitioner has received a huge amount on retirement, it would be inappropriate, unjust and cruel to freeze the entire account, covering the entire amount, including his pensionary benefits.

¶29

Crl.MC.No.4086 of 2019

¶30

-5-

¶31

Anyway, the petitioner's prayer before

¶32

this Court is not to allow him to withdraw amount covered by debentures, but only to allow him to receive the interest accrued on the deposits. In the present circumstances where major portion of the amount in deposit must be the pensionary benefits, I feel it appropriate and just to allow the prayer in toto, permitting the petitioner to receive the entire amount of interest accrued on the deposits, in modification of the orders passed by the trial court. Thus, it is made clear that on the amount covered by debentures now with the Muthoot Fianance Private Limited being withdrawn

¶33

and redeposited in Fixed deposit in the nationalized bank, the entire amount of interest accrued on the deposits can be withdrawn by the petitioner. So also, there is another modification that instead of executing a bond for Rs.60 lakhs each, the petitioner shall execute a bond for Rs.30

¶34

Crl.MC.No.4086 of 2019

¶35

-6-

¶36

lakhs each. Subject to the above modifications, the order of the court below will stand confirmed. If the petitioner wants to withdraw any amount for any urgent purpose from out of the pensionary benefits, the request can be appropriately considered by the trial court.

Sd/-

Ds 03.07.2019

P.UBAID JUDGE

-7-

Crl.MC.No.4086 of 2019

¶42

APPENDIX

¶43

PETITIONER'S/S EXHIBITS:

¶44

ANNEXURE I TRUE COPY OF THE FINAL REPORT DATED 31/07/2015. ANNEXURE II TRUE COPY OF THE ABOVE ORDER DATED 08/06/2012. ANNEXURE III TRUE COPY OF THE PENSION PAYMENT ORDER DATED 27/06/2012. ANNEXURE IV TRUE COPIES OF THE SALARY CERTIFICATES ISSUED TO THE DAUGHTER OF THE PETITIONER.

¶45

ANNEXURE V TRUE COPY OF THE LETTER OF EMPLOYMENT ISSUED TO THE SECOND DAUGHTER OF THE PETITIONER DATED 16/03/2010. ANNEXURE VI TRUE COPY OF THE ORDER DATED 30/10/2018. ANNEXURE VII TRUE COPY OF THE PETITION FILED BY THE PETITIONER.

¶46

ANNEXURE VIII CERTIFIED COPY OF THE ORDER DATED 14/05/2019 IN CRL.MP.NO.73/2019 IN C.C.NO.3/2015 IN RC 7(A)/2013/CBI/COCHIN PASSED BY THE COURT OF THE SPECIAL JUDGE (SPE/CBI), THIRUVANANTHAPURAM.

¶47

ANNEXURE IX TRUE COPY OF THE STATEMENT OF ACCOUNT OF SB ACCOUNT NO-57036272176 OF STATE BANK OF TRAVANCORE,MEDICAL COLLEGE,BRANCH,FOR THE PERIOD FROM 11.5.2012 TO 07.08.2012 ANNEXURE X TRUE COPY OF APPLICATION FORMS FOR RTGS ANNEXURE XI TRUE COPIES OF THE DEBENTURE CERTIFICATES DATED 05.9.2012

¶48

Crl.MC.No.4086 of 2019

¶49

-8-

¶50

ANNEXURE XII TRUE COPY OF THE LETTER ISSUED BY M/S.MUTHOOT FINANCE LIMITED,PATHANAMTHITTA DATED 14.7.2014

Puthen Veedu Bhaskaran Sourabhan, v. Central Bureau of Investigation

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Puthen Veedu Bhaskaran Sourabhan, v. Central Bureau of Investigation

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

Hassan Kannu Vs State of Kerala

Muraleedharan Vs State of Kerala

Abdul Khader M a Vs State

Sibi Jacob Vs State of Kerala

Jeena.R.Nair, Vs Central Bauru of Investigation

Saju Antony Vs State of Kerala