Dismissed

Smt. Lalitha Ratlavath v. The State of Andhra Pradesh

Telangana HC4 Jul 2011CRLRC/570/2011

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

Three criminal revisions were filed seeking defreezing of the bank accounts of the wife and daughters of an accused officer. The High Court dismissed them, holding that petitioners failed to prove independent income sources and funds belonged to the accused, making defreeze premature pending investigation.

What did the court decide?

The applications to defreeze the petitioners' bank accounts were dismissed; no interim relief granted.

Smt. Lalitha Ratlavath Vs The State of Andhra Pradesh — Corruption | Telangana HC (2011)

¶1

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE OF ANDHRA PRADESH : HYDERABAD

¶2

MONDAY, THE FOURTH (4^TH ) DAY OF JULY, TWO THOUSAND AND ELEVEN

¶3

Present:

¶4

HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE G.V.SEETHAPATHY

¶5

Criminal Revision Case Nos.569, 570 & 571 of 2011 Crl.R.C.No.569 of 2011:

¶6

Between: Smt. Swapna And: State of A.P., through Spl. PP, SPE & ACB cases, Hyderabad Crl.R.C.No.570 of 2011: Between: Smt.Lalitha Ratlavath And: State of A.P., through Spl. PP, SPE & ACB cases, Hyderabad Crl.R.C.No.571 of 2011: Between: Kum. Swetha Ratlavath And: State of A.P., through Spl. PP, SPE & ACB cases, Hyderabad

¶7

…Petitioner … Respondent …Petitioner … Respondent …Petitioner

¶8

… Respondent

¶9

HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE G.V.SEETHAPATHY

¶10

Criminal Revision Case Nos.569, 570 & 571 of 2011

¶11

COMMON ORDER:

¶12

Crl.R.C.No.569 of 2011 is directed against the order in Crl.M.P.No.44 of 2011, Crl.R.C.No.570 of 2011 is directed against the order in Crl.M.P.No.45 of 2011 and Crl.R.C.No.571 of 2011 is directed against the order in Crl.M.P.No.43 of 2011, dated 19.02.2011 in Cr.No.21/ACB-CR/HYD/2010, on the file of the Principal Special Judge for SPE & ACB Cases, Hyderabad, wherein the said petitions filed by the petitioners individually under Section 451 Cr.P.C. to defreeze the savings bank accounts, were dismissed.

¶13

2. As the three cases arise out of the same crime with similar prayer, they are all heard together and disposed of by this common order. Heard the learned counsel for the petitioners and the learned Standing Counsel for the respondent-ACB. Perused the record.

¶14

3. The petitioner in Crl.R.C.No.569 of 2011 is the elder married daughter, petitioner in Crl.R.C.No.570 of 2011 is the wife and the petitioner in Crl.R.C.No.571 of 2011 is the younger unmarried daughter of the accused Officer. It is not disputed that ACB authorities registered case against the accused officer for possessing assets disproportionate to his own source of income. During the course of investigation, the respondent authorities freezed the bank accounts of the petitioners. It is alleged by the respondent that the accused officer has kept gold and other wealth binami in the name of his wife and daughters by opening binami accounts in the banks. It is stated that the petitioner in Crl.R.C. No.569 of 2011 is holding bank account ever since her college days and there are two deposits amounting to Rs.16,50,000/- in the bank even prior to her marriage and now the amount found in her bank accounts are to the extent of Rs.90,595/- and two term

¶15

deposits for Rs.5 lakhs each.

¶16

4. Learned counsel for the petitioners would submit that the petitioner is a medical practitioner and she has got independent source of her own income. In support there of, he filed a certificate issued by one Dr. K. Ashok, to the effect that in his absence, the petitioner was doing medical practice in his clinic during the period from January 2005 to May 2006. The petitioner has not placed any material to show that as to how much income she earned during the said period and the income that was earned subsequent to the said period. She has also not filed any income tax returns. She has also not filed any material to show that she is continuing the medical practice even after 2006.

¶17

5. It is stated that the petitioner in Crl.R.C.No.570 of 2011 is the wife of the accused officer and a sum of Rs.1,05,020/- was found in her savings bank account and Rs.20,000/- in the fixed deposit in Andhra Bank. According to the petitioner, she was doing tailoring and embroidery work, besides earning amounts from money lending that she got from her parents at the time of marriage and on other occasions and thus, she had substantial source of income. She also did not file any material to show as to how much amount was given by her parents and at what time and how much income she has generated from out of it by lending the same to others. She has also not filed any material to show that she has been doing tailoring and embroidery work and was getting any income there from.

¶18

6. It is stated that the petitioner in Crl.R.C.No.571 of 2011 is the unmarried younger daughter of the accused officer and a sum of Rs.11,93,171/-, 11,93,171/- and Rs.5,96,584/- were kept in Kalpataru fixed deposits and also credit balance of Rs.53,671/- in Andhra Bank. Admittedly, the petitioner is still student and she has

¶19

no income of her own. It is stated that the accused officer has kept the said amount in the name of the petitioner for the purpose of meeting her marriage expenses.

¶20

7. Learned standing counsel for the respondent-ACB would submit that the investigation is still pending.

¶21

8. As the petitioners in Crl.R.C.Nos.569 and 570 of 2011 have not placed any material to show that they have got independent source of income and that the amounts found lying in their names in the banks do not reflect their own earnings and in view of the admitted fact that the amount lying in fixed deposits in the name of the petitioner in Crl.R.C.No.571 of 2011, in fact belong to the accused officer himself and as the investigation is still pending, it is considered that defreeze of the accounts of the petitioners cannot be permitted at this stage. In the circumstances, the impugned orders dismissing the applications filed by the petitioners, do not therefore call for interference. However, this order does not preclude the petitioners from approaching the Courts below at a later stage.

¶22

9. In the result, all the three criminal revision cases are dismissed.

¶23

Date: 04.07.2011 bss

¶24

____________________ G.V.SEETHAPATHY, J

Smt. Lalitha Ratlavath v. The State of Andhra Pradesh

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Smt. Lalitha Ratlavath v. The State of Andhra Pradesh

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

Bontha Konda Sarveswara rao, Vs Bontha Annapruna Devi

Kodangu Vijaya Laxmi Vs State of Andhra Pradesh

Smt. P.Rajamma Vs M.Doraswamy Naidu

Thellakula Anandha Chetty, Vs T.A. Harikrishna

Thellakula Anandha Chetty, Vs T.A. Harikrishna

Thellakula Anandha Chetty, Vs T.A. Harikrishna