Final Order 10

Order Details: COPY OF ORDER
Pdf Text: Crl. Rev. No. 727/2023
Vinod Dilawari vs. The State
05.11.2024
Present : Mr. Sahil Malik, Ld. Counsel for the revisionist.
Mr. Shiv Kumar, Ld. Addl. PP along with
investigating officer ACP Manoj Kumar.
Ld. Counsel for the revisionist has assailed the order
dated 05.08.2023 and sought that the bank account no.
50100368133853 at the Rajouri Garden Branch of HDFC Bank,
which was freezed by the Special Cell, may be defreezed.
Revisionist, it is asserted, has no connection with the offence. He is
neither an accused nor a suspect. He is dependent upon the meager
financial resources and savings lying in his bank and he should not
be deprived of the same. His Bank Account is lying freezed from
the last about 04 years, without any justification.
The respondent/State while contesting the revision
filed its reply which gives the details of the case FIR no. 276/2020
wherein it is stated as to how the American citizens have been
cheated by the accused persons in the case through a fake Call
Centre in which about 20 people were working including the son of
the present revisionist namely Sahil Dilawari.
It is submitted that the account of the revisionist was
frozen because of heavy cash amount was being withdrawn from
the account of accused Sahil Dilawari, who is the son of the present
revisionist and as those amounts were being deposited in the
account of the present revisionist. Apart from that it is submitted
that the revisionist could not show the source of money
deposited/lying in his bank account. The claim that it was his rental
income for the period starting from 2017-18, but there was no such
Crl. Rev. No. 727/2023 Vinod Dilawari vs. The State 1 of 5
-- 1 of 5 --
deposit prior to the year 2020. This period is relevant since the
offence in which the son of the revisionist is facing trial is that very
year in which the American citizens were cheated by the so-called
Call Centre, which was a fake setup to cheat the unsuspected
American nationals.
Additionally, it is submitted that the revisionist has
concealed the fact that a similar application was already dismissed
by the trial court. It is, however, stated that investigation is still
continuing and there may be a supplementary charge-sheet
inasmuch as certain digital devices are lying with the FSL for its
examination and extraction of data.
Thus, primarily the failure on the part of the
revisionist to share the information about the source of money and
the so called rental income being not shown in the ITR have been
put forth as the ground for not defreezing the account of the
revisionist, coupled with the fact that multiple cash deposits were
made in the account of the revisionist during the period when the
cheating with the American citizens was going on involving the son
of the revisionist.
I have considered the contentions raised by the
contesting sides and have gone through the record as well.
In a Revision petition, the Revisional Court is
expected to examine the impugned order on the parameters of
being correct, legal and proper. The Revisional Court is also
expected to come to the conclusion that the impugned order is not
an interlocutory order and, therefore, not hit by Section 397 (2)
Cr.P.C. Thus, within the aforesaid parameters and the limited
scope, the impugned order is required to be examined.
Crl. Rev. No. 727/2023 Vinod Dilawari vs. The State 2 of 5
-- 2 of 5 --
Scope of Revision
In
State of Kerala Vs. Puttamana Illath Jathavedan
Namboodiri [(1999) Crl.J.1443], in para number 6, it has been
observed as follows :
“It is a settled law that while exercising its power
under Section 397 Cr.P.C., the revisional court
ordinarily examines the questions of law that are
raised for adjudication. However, while hearing
revisions under Section 397 Cr.P.C., the Court does
not work as an appellate court and will not re-
appreciate the evidence, unless some glaring feature
is pointed out which may show that injustice has
been done. Ordinarily, it would be inappropriate to
re-appreciate the evidence and interfere with
findings of facts when the same have already been
appreciated by the Magistrate as well as the Sessions
Judge in appeal”.
The counsel for the revisionist has stated at the outset
that there was no intention to withhold or hide any information
with regard to the earlier application inasmuch as trial court record
contains all the details, which in any case, would have been
summoned. So no malafide can be attributed to the revisionist on
this count.
It is further submitted that the revisionist is ready and
willing to furnish the Indemnity Bond of more than the amount in
question which was deposited in cash to the tune of Rs.1,71,000/-
and odd rupees. To strengthen his arguments, Ld. Counsel for
revisionist has placed reliance on the following judgments to
emphasize that the revision is maintainable and not being hit by
Section 397 (2) Cr.P.C.
i.
Muktaben M. Mashru vs. State of NCT of Delhi &
Anr., Crl. M.C. 4206/2018 & Crl. M.A. 30311/2018 decided by the
Hon’ble High Court of Delhi on 29.11.2019;
Crl. Rev. No. 727/2023 Vinod Dilawari vs. The State 3 of 5
-- 3 of 5 --
ii.
Sri Narayan Yadav vs. State of Karnataka, Writ
Petition No. 226989/2020 decided by the Hon’ble High Court of
Karnataka on 30.08.2021 and
iii.
Honnaiah T.H. vs. State of Karnataka, Criminal
Appeal No. 1147/2022 decided by the Hon’ble Supreme Court of
India on 04.08.2022
The emphasis of the respondent/State, on the other
hand was on the fact that the revisionist has suppressed the facts
about the earlier application, which was moved before the Ld. Trial
Court and that the revisionist is unable to establish the source of
money, despite being specifically asked during the investigation.
Having taken into consideration the entire gamut of
facts and circumstances, it appears on record that the Bank Account
of the revisionist was freezed by the respondent/Special Cell on the
premises that a total sum of Rs.1,71,000/- was deposited in cash in
2/3 instances, which were unaccounted according to the
respondent. The rest of the money came and went out of the
account of the revisionist through cheques etc. The explanation
furnished by the revisionist that it was his rental income has been
found to be an inappropriate explanation.
However, it is not the case of the respondent that
revisionist is an accused or even a suspect. It is not disputed by the
respondent that amount which falls into the scope and ambit of a
suspicious deposition, which may have some connection with the
offence, which is the subject matter of the FIR no. 276/2020 is not
more than Rs.2/- Lacs or say within the vicinity of Rs.1,71,000/-.
It is also not in dispute that revisionist is an old man nor it is in
dispute that his son Sahil Dilawari is an accused in the aforesaid
Crl. Rev. No. 727/2023 Vinod Dilawari vs. The State 4 of 5
-- 4 of 5 --
FIR and facing the trial. It is also not disputed that the amount, at
the most, could be around Rs.1,71,000/- and odd rupees.
Therefore, in such circumstances, when another bank account
having about Rs.55,00,000/- has been freezed then the amount in
question, if it all it was the proceeds of crime, appears peanuts. The
willingness of the revisionist to furnish an Indemnity Bond over
and above the amount in question gives another reason to consider
the revision favorably especially when the revisionist is neither an
accused nor a suspect. As a result, the revision petition is allowed
and the impugned order is set aside.
Respondent is directed to defreeze the account no.
50100368133853, HDFC Bank, Rajouri Garden Branch, subject to
the condition that an indemnity bond in a sum of Rs.2,50,000/- is
furnished by the revisionist to the court of Ld. CJM.
The revision petition stands disposed off accordingly.
TCR be transmitted back.
File be consigned to Record Room.
(Vimal Kumar Yadav)
Principal District & Sessions Judge
Patiala House Courts/ND/05.11.2024
Crl. Rev. No. 727/2023 Vinod Dilawari vs. The State 5 of 5
-- 5 of 5 --