Allowed

M.Narendra, Aged 62 Years v. Invesigating Officer

Madras HC9 Jul 2018CRL RC/588/2018

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The High Court allowed this criminal revision petition regarding the freezing of the petitioner's bank account. Finding credits related to rental income and pension, the Court directed the prosecution to permit the petitioner to operate the account based on the prosecutor's lack of objection.

What did the court decide?

Directed respondent to intimate the bank to defreeze savings account No. SB/02/015215 at Corporation Bank, Pandeshwar Branch.

M.Narendra, Aged 62 Years Vs Invesigating Officer — Madras HC (2018) — LawSathi Research

¶1

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS

¶2

Dated : 09.07.2018

¶3

CORAM

¶4

THE HONOURABLE DR.JUSTICE G.JAYACHANDRAN

¶5

Crl.R.C.No.588 of 2018

¶6

M.Narendra ... Petitioner

¶7

Vs.

¶8

Investigating Officer, Central Bureau of Investigation, Anti Corruption Branch, Sastri Bhavan, Chennai-600006. ... Respondent

¶9

Prayer: Criminal Revision case filed under Section 397 and 401 of Cr.P.C. praying to set aside the order of the learned XI Additional Sessions Judge and Special Judge for CBI Cases, Chennai dated 31.01.2018 in Crl.Mp.No,3983 of 2017 in RCMA1 2014 A0004 and direct the respondent to raise the attachment on :

¶10

S.No Account Name of Name of the Bank
. Number Account
Holder
1 SB/02/015215 M.Narendra Corporation Bank,
(retired 133, Mangalore-Pandeshwar,
benefits Mangaladevi Temple Road,
including Pandeshwar, P.B.No.42,
gratuity, Mangalore-575 001.
fixed
Deposits,
pension
Credits)
to permit the petitioner to operate the above account.
For Petitioner : Mr.P.V.S.Giridhar
for M/s. Giridhar and Sai

¶11

to permit the petitioner to operate the above account.

¶12

For Respondent : Mr. K. Srinivasan Special Public Prosecutor for CBI

¶13

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

¶14

ORDER

¶15

This Criminal Revision Petition is arising out of the order of the learned XI Additional Sessions Judge and Special Judge for CBI Cases, Chennai dated 31.01.2018 in Crl.Mp.No,3983 of 2017 in RCMA1 2014 A0004 whereby the bank account of the petitioner bearing Account No.SB/02/015215 was freezed by the prosecution by invoking Section 102 Cr.P.C.

¶16

2 The trial Court has dismissed the petition to defreeze the account on the ground that the investigation was not completed and the petition may be revived after filing final report.

¶17

3 It is reported by the learned Special Public Prosecutor that out of 13 cases, in 10 cases prosecution has filed final report and in 3 more cases final report yet to file, as the investigation is not yet completed.

¶18

4 On perusal of the statement of account of SB/02/015215, this Court finds that the credits are related to rental income of the petitioner and his pensionery benefits. The learned Special Public Prosecutor has no serious objection to defreeze the account since it pertains to the known sources of income. Hence, the respondent is hereby directed to intimate the bank to defreeze the account No.SB/02/015215 at Corporation Bank, Pandeshwar Branch.

¶19

5 With the above direction, this Criminal Revision Case is disposed of.

¶20

Sd/-

¶21

Assistant Registrar(CS VII)

¶22

//True Copy//

¶23

Sub Assistant Registrar

¶24

rpl

¶25

¶26

1 The Investigating Officer, Central Bureau of Investigation, Anti Corruption Branch, Sastri Bhavan, Chennai-600006.

¶27

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

¶28

2 The Special Public Prosecutor for CBI cases, High Court, Madras.

¶29

+1cc to M/s. Giridhar and Sai, Advocate sr.no.44643

¶30

Crl.R.C.No.588 of 2018

¶31

nr 25/07/2018

¶32

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

M.Narendra, Aged 62 Years v. Invesigating Officer

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

M.Narendra, Aged 62 Years v. Invesigating Officer

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

M/S.Stepstone Promototers Vs the Inspector of Police

R.Murugesan, Aged 46 Yrs, Vs the State Rep by Its

M.Narayanasamy Vs the Inspector of Police

M.Narendra, Aged 62 Years Vs Invesigating Officer

R.Palanisamy, Aged 53 Years, Vs State Rep. by Its

Sp.Chidambaram Vs the State Rep. by