Disposed

I.P.Yesudoss, v. the State of Tamil Nadu

Madras HC26 Jul 2018CRL OP/10384/2018

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The High Court disposed of this Criminal Original Petition petition seeking to operate a frozen bank account linked to pending cheques under Section 482 CrPC. The Court held it lacks jurisdiction to order disbursement but permitted the petitioner to operate the account upon submitting KYC documents, finding no funds available.

What did the court decide?

Permission granted to operate the savings bank account upon submission of Know Your Customer documents; petition otherwise disposed of.

I.P.Yesudoss, Vs the State of Tamil Nadu — Banking and Recovery | Madras HC (2018)

¶1

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS

¶2

DATED: 26.07.2018

¶3

C O R A M

¶4

THE HONOURABLE Mr.JUSTICE P.N.PRAKASH

¶5

Crl.O.P.No.10384 of 2018

¶6

I.P.Yesudoss ...Petitioner

¶7

Vs.

¶8

1.The State of Tamil Nadu Represented by The Superintendent of Police Head Quarters, EOW-2 No.C-48, Block-2 Sidco Old Corporate Office Building Guindy, Chennai 600032. 2.The Branch Manager M/s Kotak Mahindra Bank Ashok Nagar Branch No.44/6, 2nd Avenue Ashok Nagar Chennai 600 083.

¶9

3.The Tax Recovery Officer-3 O/o Pr.CIT, Chennai-3 Office of the Principal Commissioner of Income Tax-3 4th Floor, Main Building 121, Mahatma Gandhi Road Chennai-34. .. Respondents

¶10

Criminal Original Petition filed under Section 482 of Cr.P.C. to direct the first respondent police and the second respondent to pass an order for allowing the petitioner to operate the bank account, viz., A/c No.1611476215 Kotak Mahindra Bank, Ashok Nagar Branch pending on accounts of the second respondents Bank based on the petitioner's representation dated 08.04.2017.

¶11

For Petitioner : Mr.I.P.Yesudoss - Party-in-person For R1 : Mr.C.Iyyapparaj Additional Public Prosecutor

¶12

https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/hcservices/

¶13

For R2

¶14

: Mr.P.Elaya Rajkumar for M/S.RAMALINGAM ASSOCIATES

¶15

O R D E R

¶16

This criminal original petition has been filed to direct respondents 1 and 2 to pass an order allowing the petitioner to operate the bank account, viz., A/c No.1611476215 held with Kotak Mahindra Bank, Ashok Nagar Branch.

¶17

The petitioner herein is facing prosecution in C.C.Nos.4479 of 2017 and 4984 of 2018 before the Chief Metropolitan Magistrate, Allikulam, for the offences under Sections 420 r/w 120-B, 409 and 109 IPC. The allegation against the petitioner is that he had collected money from various persons by floating certain Schemes and had cheated them. During the course of investigation, the police had frozen certain Bank accounts related to the petitioner and his concerns under the provisions of the Criminal Law Amendment Ordinance, 1944. Under such circumstances, the petitioner is before this Court with the above prayer.

¶18

Heard Mr.I.P.Yesudoss, party-in-person, Mr.C.Iyyapparaj, learned Additional Public Prosecutor for the first respondentState and Mr.P.Elaya Rajkumar, learned counsel for the second respondent.

¶19

Today, Mr.V.Saravanan, Branch Operational Manager, Kotak Mahindra Bank, Ashok Nagar Branch is present.

¶20

The police have filed a counter affidavit, wherein, it is stated as follows:

¶21

"3. Further I submit that all the amount which was collected from the members of WSHG has been deposited in various accounts including Aphro Trust and Aphro Financial (P) Ltd. The petitioner/accused has diverted all the defaulted money in various accounts and also purchased a lot of immovable properties i.e., house sites, Agriculture land and also constructed two house buildings in his name and Devi's name. None of the properties have been purchased in the name of Aphro Trust, it shows the intention of the petitioner/accused to dilute the money in his name, in Devi's name and his brother Selva Durai's name. While getting the G.O.Ms.No.132

¶22

https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/hcservices/

¶23

dt.09.02.2016. There is no contradiction or any violation since the money which was frozen by the investigating officer wholly collected from the poor public only.

¶24

I further submit that, after getting the G.O. Ms.No.132/2016 Home XIX Police Department dated 09.02.2016, necessary petition along with the order of the above said G.O.Ms.No.132, was filed before the Hon'ble Chief Judge, Small Causes Court, Chennai, with a prayer to pass an order of Ad-interim attachment of the movable properties mentioned in the schedule of property u/s 3 & 4 of Criminal Law Amendment Ordinance Act-1944. Further obtained an order of AdInterim attachment from the said Hon'ble Chief Judge, Small Causes Court, Chennai on 14.09.2016 in Crl.M.P.No.338 of 2016 in Crl.O.P.No.1/2006, accordingly the Hon'ble Chief Judge, Small Causes Court, Chennai appreciated the matter and admitted the affidavit and pronounced the following order "I am of the opinion that there exist the prima facie grounds to believe that the respondents namely M/s Aphro Financial (P) Ltd., IPEE Enterprises, Chennai Managaratchi Reporter, I.P.Yesudoss, Aphro Trust, IPEE Real Estate, P.Amudharaj and S.Devi, have committed scheduled offence. Hence Ad-Interim attachment is ordered." The version of petitioner/accused I.P.Yesudoss does not arise, since there is no wrong facts have been submitted to get the government order for the Ad-Interim attachment of proper.

¶25

I further submits that I am advised to submit that an order of attachment is passed by the Hon'ble Chief Judge, Small Causes Court, Chennai under the Criminal Law Amendment Ordinance Act-1944 against which this Criminal Original Petition is not maintainable. (The Hon'ble Chief Judge, Small Causes Court, posted the next hearing on 20.07.2018 for argument).

¶26

Thus, from the above, it is clear that these bank accounts have been frozen vide G.O.Ms.No.132, Home (Police XIX) Department dated 09.02.2016.

¶27

Learned Additional Public Prosecutor contended that this Court, under Section 482 Cr.P.C., cannot order de-freezing of

¶28

https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/hcservices/

¶29

the said accounts, since the remedy available to the petitioner is before the Chief Judge, Small Causes Court, where the attachment proceedings are pending.

¶30

In the opinion of this Court, what have been attached are the amounts lying in the accounts and as rightly submitted by the learned Additional Public Prosecutor, this Court cannot issue any directions with regard to the disbursal of the amounts lying in the said accounts and it is for the authority under the Ordinance to deal with the amounts lying in the said accounts and pass suitable orders. However, what the petitioner is seeking is permission to operate those accounts. In other words, he is not praying for disbursal of the amounts in those accounts to him and his prayer is for permission to operate those accounts.

¶31

On instructions, learned counsel for the second respondent submitted that the savings bank A/c No. 1611476215 stands in the name of the petitioner himself and there is no amount available in the said account. Under such circumstances, the petitioner is permitted to operate the Savings Bank Account, on submitting the Know Your Customer documents to the Manager, Kotak Mahindra Bank, Ashok Nagar Branch.

¶32

Accordingly, this petition stands disposed of. Sd/Assistant Registrar (CS-IV) // True Copy// Sub Assistant Registrar To 1.The Superintendent of Police Head Quarters, EOW-2 No.C-48, Block-2 Sidco Old Corporate Office Building Guindy, Chennai 600032.

¶33

2.The Branch Manager M/s Kotak Mahindra Bank Ashok Nagar Branch No.44/6, 2nd Avenue Ashok Nagar Chennai 600 083.

¶34

https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/hcservices/

¶35

3.The Tax Recovery Officer-3 O/o Pr.CIT, Chennai-3 Office of the Principal Commissioner of Income Tax-3 4th Floor, Main Building 121, Mahatma Gandhi Road,Chennai-34.

¶36

4.The Public Prosecutor, High Court, Madras.

¶37

+2ccs to M/S.RAMALINGAM ASSOCIATES, Advocate SR.No.50596

¶38

Crl.O.P.No.10384 of 2018
gms
SS(CO)
SMI/20.08.2018

¶39

https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/hcservices/

I.P.Yesudoss, v. the State of Tamil Nadu

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

I.P.Yesudoss, v. the State of Tamil Nadu

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

S.Murali Vs the State Rep by

Murugan, M/43 Vs State Represented by

Prem Behl, Aged 73 Years Vs M/S.Rendington (India) Ltd.

I.P.Yesudoss Vs the State of Tamil Nadu

I.P.Yesudoss, Vs the State of Tamil Nadu

Karthik, Aged 22 Years, Vs State by