IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE ANDHRA PRADESH AT HYDERABAD

MONDAY THE THIRD DAY OF FEBRUARY TWO THOUSAND AND FOURTEEN

PRESENT HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE S. RAVI KUMAR

CRL.RC.NOs. 1814, 2277, 2278, 2279 & 2280 OF 2012

Between: CRL.RC.NO. 1814 OF 2012

State of Andhra Pradesh Represented by the Inspector of Police, Anti-Corruption Bureau, Hyderabad Range, Through Standing Counsel-cum-Special Public Prosecutor for ACB Cases, High Court of A.P. Hyderabad. … Petitioner/Complainant

V/s.

D. Prabhu Das & Anr. … Respondents/Accused Officer

Between: CRL.RC.NO. 2277 OF 2012

State of Andhra Pradesh Represented by the Inspector of Police, Anti-Corruption Bureau, Hyderabad Range, Through Standing Counsel-cum-Special Public Prosecutor for ACB Cases, High Court of A.P. Hyderabad. … Petitioner/Complainant

V/s.

D. Prabhu Das & Anr. … Respondents/Accused Officer

Between: CRL.RC.NO. 2278 OF 2012

State of Andhra Pradesh Represented by the Inspector of Police, Anti-Corruption Bureau, Hyderabad Range, Through Standing Counsel-cum-Special Public Prosecutor for ACB Cases, High Court of A.P. Hyderabad. … Petitioner/Complainant

V/s.

D. Prabhu Das … Respondent/Accused Officer

Between: CRL.RC.NO. 2279 OF 2012

State of Andhra Pradesh Represented by the Inspector of Police, Anti-Corruption Bureau, Hyderabad Range, Through Standing Counsel-cum-Special Public Prosecutor for ACB Cases, High Court of A.P. Hyderabad. … Petitioner/Complainant

V/s.

D. Prabhu Das & Anr. … Respondents/Accused Officer

Between: CRL.RC.NO. 2280 OF 2012

State of Andhra Pradesh Represented by the Inspector of Police, Anti-Corruption Bureau, Hyderabad Range, Through Standing Counsel-cum-Special Public Prosecutor for ACB Cases, High Court of A.P. Hyderabad. … Petitioner/Complainant

V/s.

D. Prabhu Das & Anr. … Respondents/Accused Officer

Counsel for the Petitioner : Sri R.Ramachandra Reddy Standing Counsel & Spl.PP for ACB Counsel for the Respondents : Sri M. Sudhakar Reddy The court made the following : [common order follows] HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE S. RAVI KUMAR

CRL.RC.NOs. 1814, 2277, 2278, 2279 & 2280 OF 2012 COMMON ORDER :

These Criminal Revisions are preferred against the common order dt. 30/3/2012 in Crl.MP.Nos. 930 of 2011 to 934 of 2011 in Cr.No.35/ACB-HR/2010 whereunder the trial court ordered interim custody of cash, gold ornaments and also defreezing of bank accounts. Now aggrieved by the orders of the trial court, prosecution preferred the present Revisions; Crl.RC.No. 1814 of 2012 is preferred against orders in Crl.MP.No. 930 of 2011, Crl.RC.No. 2277 of 2012 is preferred against orders in Crl.MP.No. 931 of 2011, Crl.RC.No. 2278 of 2012 is preferred against orders in Crl.MP.No. 932 of 2011, Crl.RC.No. 2279 of 2012 is preferred against orders in Crl.MP.No. 934 of 2011 and Crl.RC.No. 2280 of 2012 is preferred against orders in Crl.MP.No. 933 of 2011.

2. The main contention of the Revision Petitioner is that the

trial court erred in directing the Investigating Authority to return cash and also ordered defreezing of accounts during the investigation period. It is also further contended that on account of defreezing of bank account prosecution is not able to know how the accounts are operated, therefore, the order of trial Judge is to be set aside.

3. On the other hand, the learned counsel for the respondents submitted that the court granted interim custody only on condition of furnishing sufficient security both for gold ornaments and also FDR amount and on a further undertaking to produce the ornaments as and when directed by the court. It is submitted that the respondents are ready to produce the ornaments at the time of trial and ready to co-operate with the court during trial.

4. Five separate Revisions are filed seeking interim custody. Out of them four Revisions are by third-parties i.e., daughter-in-law, wife and son whereas the fifth revision is filed by the accused officer himself. The property that was returned is cash of Rs.2,00,000=00 and gold ornaments and also defreezing accounts of accused and his son at Andhra Bank, East Marredpalli and HDFC Bank Marredpalli respectively. Now the main objection of the prosecution is in respect of the direction granted for defreezing of the bank accounts.

5. According to prosecution, on account of defreezing the accused and his son are operating bank accounts and prosecution is

at a loss to know the transaction during the period of investigation and trial. With regard to gold ornaments, the trial court already directed the petitioners not to change the nature of ornaments and directed that they shall produce the gold ornaments in the same condition as and when directed by the court and further collected a personal bond for Rs.2,00,000=00 with one surety. Even in respect of return of cash relating to FDR also bond was obtained for the same amount and it appears that the respondents have executed necessary bonds.

6. Now from the arguments of the learned Special Public Prosecutor for ACB, it is clear investigation is completed and charge sheet is also filed which is numbered as CC.No. 64 of 2013 on the file of I-Additional Special Judge for ACB Cases and the same is pending trial.

7. Considering the fact that investigation is completed and the material objects are required only at the time of trial, I feel that the conditions imposed by the trial court are sufficient to secure the presence of the material objects at the time of trial. However, with regard to defreezing of accounts, subsequent transaction may not be in the notice of prosecution, therefore, I feel that a direction to the petitioners in Crl.MP.No. 932 of 2011 and Crl.MP.No. 934 of 2011 before the trial court to produce periodical statement of account

relating to these two bank accounts before the trial court, so that the prosecution can examine them and the parties will also have control over the operation of bank accounts.

8. For these reasons, petitioners in Crl.MP.No. 932 of 2011 and Crl.MP.No. 934 of 2011 in the trial court are directed to file statement of account relating to Andhra Bank and HDFC Bank for every six months before the trial court on or before 15 th of every six months from the date of order of the court below.

9. With these observations, the Criminal Revisions are dismissed.

________________________ JUSTICE S. RAVI KUMAR.

03/02/2014 I s L

HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE S. RAVI KUMAR

CRLRC.NOs. 1814, 2277, 2278, 2279 & 2280 OF 2012

Circulation No. 188 Date:03/2/2014 Court Master: I s L Computer No.43