Dismissed

M/S Hema Construction v. State of Rajasthan through Pp

Rajasthan HC23 Nov 2017CRLMP/4169/2016

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The High Court dismissed a criminal miscellaneous petition under Section 482 Cr.P.C. challenging the trial court's order requiring the petitioner to furnish security before unfreezing its baroda bank account in a corruption and cheating investigation. The Court held the trial court order was discretionary and lawful.

What did the court decide?

The criminal miscellaneous petition is dismissed as the impugned order ruling in favour of the petitioner ordering the unfreezing of account has no obvious illegality.

M/S Hema Construction Vs State of Rajasthan through Pp — Corruption | Rajasthan HC (2017)

¶1

HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE FOR RAJASTHAN BENCH AT JAIPUR

¶2

S.B. Criminal Misccellaneous (Petition) No. 4169 / 2016

¶3

M/S Hema Construction

¶4

----Petitioner

¶5

Versus

¶6

State Of Rajasthan Through Pp

¶7

----Respondent

¶8

_____________________________________________________ For Petitioner(s) : Mr. Ravi Chirania

¶9

For Respondent(s) : Mr. Ram Niwas

¶10

Mr. Ashwini Kumar Sharma

¶11

HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE GOVERDHAN BARDHAR Judgment / Order

¶12

23/11/2017

¶13

Counsel for the petitioner/applicant seeks permission to withdraw the application (inward No. 20126/22.9.2017) filed by the applicant under section 482 Cr.P.C for taking on record the copy of the charge-sheet filed by the CBI as also for early listing of the petition.

¶14

In view of above, the application filed by the applicant is accordingly dismissed as withdrawn.

¶15

With the consent of learned counsel appearing for the respective parties, the instant criminal misc. petition is finally decided.

¶16

The petitioner has filed this criminal misc. petition under Section 482 Cr.P.C., challenging the order dated 08.08.2016 (Annex.1) passed by the learned Special Judge (C.B.I. Cases No.2), Jaipur Metropolitan Jaipur (‘the learned trial court’ for

¶17

(2 of 3)

¶18

[CRLMP-4169/2016]

¶19

short) in Criminal Misc. Application No. 48/2016, M/s. Hema Construction Vs. State (C.B.I.), whereby the learned trial court directed the petitioner firm to submit the bank guarantee of Rs. 1,43,40,000/- and its undertaking before it and only thereafter, the petitioner firm can operate its freezed Bank Account No. 01370400000557, in Bank of Baroda, Main Branch, Udaipur, which has been seized by the C.B.I on registration of FIR No. RC/BD1/2016/E/0002/CBI/BS&FC/ New Delhi under Section 120-B, 409, 420, 467,468, 471 of the IPC and Section 13 (2) read with 13(1) (C) &(D) of the Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988.

¶20

Counsel for the petitioner argued that the petitioner firm has not been named in the FIR for falsifying false cheques and bills and whatever allegations have been levelled in the FIR, same have been levelled against Mr. Bharat Bamb, C.A. who is an accused in the aforementioned FIR. Counsel argued that the learned trial court erred in ignoring the fact that due to freeze of the Bank Account of the petitioner-firm, the petitioner-firm is facing a great hardship in doing day to day business transaction.

¶21

Learned counsel appearing for the CBI has supported the impugned order passed by the learned trial court and argued that the Bank of Baroda issued a demand notice dated 16.1.2017 to the petitioner-firm under the Securitization and Reconstruction of Financial Assets and Enforcement of Security Interest Act, 2002 in exercise of powers conferred under section 13(12) read with Rule 3 of the Security Interest (Enforcement) Rules, 2002. Learned counsel further argued that the petitioner-firm is evading from its own liability.

¶22

(3 of 3)

¶23

[CRLMP-4169/2016]

¶24

Heard learned counsel for the petitioner, learned counsel appearing for the CBI and perused the impugned order.

¶25

In this matter FIR was lodged on 07.03.2016 with regard to allegations for falsifying fake bills, fake cheques in Syndicate Bank, of huge amount and involvement of the petitioner-firm is subject matter of the investigation.

¶26

Taking into consideration overall facts of the case and the material made available, the trial Court has exercised its discretion in passing the impugned conditional order with regard to operation of freezed Bank Account No. 01370400000557, in Bank of Baroda, Main Branch, Udaipur, by the petitioner-firm for day to day business transactions. The impugned order passed by the trial court is discretionary in nature.

¶27

I do not find any illegality in the impugned order.

¶28

In view of the above, this petition is dismissed.

¶29

However, the petitioner is at liberty to file fresh application before the learned trial court on the basis of subsequent developments, if so advised.

¶30

(GOVERDHAN BARDHAR)J.

¶31

Ashu/58

M/S Hema Construction v. State of Rajasthan through Pp

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

M/S Hema Construction v. State of Rajasthan through Pp

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

Dalchand Gupta Vs State of Raj and Ors.

Deependra Singh Vs State of Rajasthan and Anr.

Madan Vs State of Rajasthan and Anr.

Umar Vs State of Rajasthan through Pp

Devi Narayan Meena and Ors. Vs State of Raj and Ors.

Rodu Lal Vs State