Select the following parts of the judgment
| Facts | Issues |
| Petitioner's Arguments | Respondent's Arguments |
| Analysis of the law | Precedent Analysis |
| Court's Reasoning | Conclusion |
For entire doc: Unmark Mark View how precedents are cited in this document View precedents: Unmark Mark View only precedents: Unmark Mark Select precedent ... Filter precedents by opinion of the court
| Relied by Party | Accepted by Court |
| Negatively Viewed by Court | |

## Unlock Advanced Research with PRISM AI

Integrated with over 4 crore judgments and laws — designed for legal practitioners, researchers, students and institutions

• Know your Kanoon - Doc Gen Hub - Counter Argument - Case Predict AI - Talk with IK Doc -... Upgrade to Premium [Cites 21, Cited by 0 ] ### Karnataka High Court

M/S Mahi Enterprises vs State By on 25 March, 2026

Author: M.Nagaprasanna

Bench: M.Nagaprasanna

1

Reserved on :05.02.2026
Pronounced on : 25.03.2026

    IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU

       DATED THIS THE 25TH DAY OF MARCH, 2026

                      BEFORE

     THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE M. NAGAPRASANNA

         CRIMINAL PETITION No.1008 OF 2025

                         C/W

         CRIMINAL PETITION No.1022 OF 2025

IN CRIMINAL PETITION No.1008 OF 2025

BETWEEN:

M/S. MAHI ENTERPRISES
REPRESENTED BY ITS PROPRIETOR,
MR.PARIKH BHAVIK,
S/O MR. LALITH BHAI,
AGED ABOUT 23 YEARS,
R/O NO.9, RAVINIKETAN SOCIETY,
LAST BUS STOP, MEGHANI NAGAR,
AHMEDABAD CITY CIVIL HOSPITAL,
GUJARAT - 380 016.
... PETITIONER
(BY SRI BHARATH KUMAR V., ADVOCATE)

AND:

1. STATE BY
   CENTRAL CEN POLICE STATION,
   2

   CENTRAL DIVISION,
   BENGALURU.
   REPRESENTED BY
   STATE PUBLIC PROSECUTOR,
   HON'BLE HIGH COURT OF KARNATKA,
   DR.AMBEDKAR VEEDHI,
   BENGALURU - 560 001.

2. M/S.CHANDRU AND CO.,
   REPRESENTED BY MR. HEMANTH SHEKHAR
   NO. 12/4, NEHRU NAGAR,
   RAILWAY PARALLEL ROAD,
   NEAR SHESHADRIPURAM CIRCLE,
   BENGALURU - 20.

                                     ... RESPONDENTS
   

(BY SRI K.NAGESHWARAPPA, HCGP FOR R-1;
SRI K.B.K.SWAMY, ADVOCATE FOR R-2)

 THIS CRIMINAL PETITION IS FILED UNDER SECTION 482 OF

CR.P.C., PRAYING TO 1.QUASH THE ORDER DATED 18.05.2022
PASSED BY THE HON'BLE I A.C.M.M BENGALURU IN MATTER
BEARING CR.NO.413/2021 (CURRENTLY RE-NUMBERED AS MATTER
BEARING C.C.NO.27075/2023) (ANNEXURE-A); 2.QUASH / SET
ASIDE THE ORDER DATED 11.11.2024 PASSED BY THE HON'BLE
LXVI ADDL.CITY CIVIL AND SESSIONS JUDGE BENGALURU CITY
(CCH 67) IN MATTER BEARING CRL.RP.NO.475/2022; 3.DIRECT
THE RESPONDENT NO.1 POLICE TO DE-FREEZE THE FOLLOWING
ACCOUNT OF THE PETITIONER.
3

IN CRIMINAL PETITION No.1022 OF 2025

BETWEEN:

M/S. MAHI ENTERPRISES
REPRESENTED BY ITS PROPRIETOR,
MR. PARIKH BHAVIK,
S/O MR. LALITH BHAI,
AGED ABOUT 23 YEARS,
R/O NO.9, RAVINIKETAN SOCIETY,
LAST BUS STOP, MEGHANI NAGAR
AHMEDABAD CITY CIVIL HOSPITAL,
GUJARAT - 380 016.

                                       ... PETITIONER

(BY SRI BHARATH KUMAR V., ADVOCATE)

AND:

1. STATE BY
   CENTRAL CEN CRIME POLICE STATION,
   CENTRAL DIVISION,
   BENGALURU
   REPRESENTED BY
   STATE PUBLIC PROSECUTOR,
   HON'BLE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA
   DR.AMBEDKAR VEEDHI,
   BENGALURU - 560 001.

2. M/S.CHANDRU AND CO.,
   REPRESENTED BY
   MR. HEMANTH SHEKHAR
   NO.12/4, NEHRU NAGAR
   RAILY PARALLEL ROAD,
   NEAR SHESHADRIPURAM CIRCLE,
   BENGALURU - 20.
   ... RESPONDENTS
   (BY SRI K.NAGESHWARAPPA, HCGP FOR R-1;
   4

   SRI K.B.K.SWAMY, ADVOCATE FOR R-2)

   THIS CRIMINAL PETITION IS FILED UNDER SECTION 482 OF
   CR.P.C., PRAYING TO 1.SET ASIDE THE ORDER DATED 27.09.2021
   PASSED BY THE HON'BLE I A.C.M.M BENGALURU IN MATTER
   BEARING CR.NO.413/2021 (CURRENTLY RE-NUMBERED AS MATTER
   BEARING C.C.NO.27075/2023 (ANNEXURE-A); 2.SET ASIDE THE
   ORDER DATED 11.11.2024 PASSED BY THE HON'BLE LXVI
   ADDL.CITY CIVIL AND SESSIONS JUDGE BENGALURU CITY (CCH
   67) IN MATTER BEARING CRL.RP.NO.34/2024 (ANNEXURE-B).

   THESE CRIMINAL PETITIONS HAVING BEEN HEARD AND
   RESERVED FOR ORDERS ON 05.02.2026, COMING ON FOR
   PRONOUNCEMENT THIS DAY, THE COURT MADE THE FOLLOWING:-

CORAM: THE HON'BLE MR JUSTICE M.NAGAPRASANNA

                       CAV ORDER

 These petitions are preferred by a common petitioner -

accused No.2 in Crime No.413/2021, calling in question the orders

dated 27.09.2021 and 18.05.2022, both passed by the I Additional

Chief Metropolitan Magistrate, Bengaluru, on two applications, both

filed under Sections 451 and 457 of the Cr.P.C. in Crime

No.413/2021, one preferred by the petitioner herein and another by

respondent No.2 - complainant. The application preferred by the

complainant seeking interim custody of the seized amount in

P.F.No.14/2021 of ₹1,12,15,884/- lying in the account of the
5

petitioner in M/s.IDBI Bank comes to be allowed on certain

conditions in terms of the order dated 27.09.2021 and the

application preferred by the petitioner seeking defreezement of his

account held in M/s.IDBI Bank, C.G.Road Branch, Ahmedabad,

comes to be rejected by the concerned Court in terms of the order

dated 18.05.2022. These two orders are challenged before the

concerned Revisional Court in Crl.R.P.Nos.34/2024 and 475/2022

respectively, both of which comes to be dismissed by affirming the

order of the concerned Court in terms of its orders, both dated

11.11.2024.

  2. Heard Sri Bharath Kumar V., learned counsel for petitioner,

Sri K. Nageshwarappa, learned High Court Government Pleader for

respondent No.1 and Sri K.B.K.Swamy, learned counsel for

respondent No.2.

  3.   For   the    sake   of    convenience,    facts    obtaining    in

Crl.P.No.1022/2025, which are similar in companion petition on the

question in the lis involved, would be narrated.
6

   4. Facts in brief, germane, are as follows:

   A complaint comes to be registered on 26.08.2021 by

respondent No.2 - complainant before respondent No.1 - police

station alleging that he was contacted by one Rato Gibson Jude,

who claimed to be representing M/s.Centric Pharmaceutical Limited

through an electronic mail on 19.07.2021 and that M/s.Centric

Pharmaceutical Limited is based in United Kingdom and is

interested in procuring Bio Champacalin Fluid, which is one of the

pharmaceutical products available in India. On the same day, by

another electronic mail, the said person - Rato Gibson Jude claimed

that the said pharmaceutical products needed by the Company

were available with the supplier in India - one M/s.Sagar

Enterprises - Accused No.1. The said person has also claimed that

if the complainant procures the product at a price of U.S.D. 4,000

per litre from M/s. Sagar Enterprises, the same could be sold by

respondent No.2 - complainant at U.S.D. 8,500 per litre to

M/s.Centric Pharmaceutical Limited. The business proposal rang

the bells of accused No.1 and respondent No.2 - complainant.

Communications between the three galore seeking to purchase said

products at an agreed quantity on receipt of 100% payment.
7

Respondent No.2 - complainant procured a sample of 1 litre from

accused No.1 by making a payment of ₹3,00,000/- into the bank

account of accused No.1. Disputes arose with regard to payment or

payment of amount into the hands of accused Nos.1 and 2. The

complainant is said to have parted the entire material but, received

no money. Therefore, the complaint comes to be registered on

26.08.2021, against unknown persons, on account of payment

being made and no material being received. The said complaint

becomes a crime in Crime No.413/2021, for offences punishable

under Sections 419 and 420 of the IPC read with Section 66D of the

Information Technology Act, 2000. The police then debit freeze the

account of the petitioner in terms of the order of the Magistrate on

the requisition application so filed by the jurisdictional Police under Section 102 of the Cr.P.C. and consequently ₹1,12,15,884/- lying in

the account of the petitioner stood frozen. The police after

conducting investigation file a charge sheet in C.C.No.27075/2023

for the afore-quoted offences, arraigning the petitioner as accused

No.2.
8

  5. Respondent No.2 - complainant prefers an application

under Sections 451 and 457 of the Cr.P.C. seeking release of the

aforesaid amount from the bank account of the petitioner

maintained in M/s.IDBI Bank, in favour of respondent No.2 as an

interim custody. On consideration of the application preferred by

respondent No.2, the concerned Court allows the application and

directs release of the aforesaid amount into the interim custody of

respondent No.2 on certain conditions, by order dated 27.09.2021.

Another application from the petitioner springs before the

concerned Court under Sections 451 and 457 of the Cr.P.C.,

seeking a direction for defreezement of the current account of the

petitioner and to allow him to access the account for his business

activities. The concerned Court rejects the application of the

petitioner by its order dated 18.05.2022. Being aggrieved by the

said orders passed by the concerned Court on the applications filed

under Sections 451 and 457 of the Cr.P.C., the petitioner prefers

revision petitions before the Court of Session in

Crl.R.P.Nos.34/2024 and 475/2022 respectively. The Court of

Session in terms of the orders dated 11.11.2024, dismisses the

petitions by affirming the orders passed by the concerned Court.
9

Challenging both these orders in two separate petitions, which was

concerning two separate applications, the petitioner - accused No.2

is before this Court.

  6. Sri Bharath Kumar V., learned counsel for the petitioner

would vehemently contend that transactions between the petitioner

and respondent No.2 is only to the tune of ₹30/- lakhs or even

₹40/- lakhs, which would not mean that entire amount of

₹1,12,15,884/- should be frozen and transferred to the

complainant's account. He would submit that petitioner was not

completely heard before passing the said orders. Therefore, the

orders that are passed are in violation of the principles of natural

justice.

  7. Per contra, Sri K.B.K.Swamy, learned counsel appearing for

respondent No.2 - complainant would refute the submissions

contending that both the concerned Courts have concurrently held

that accused Nos.1 and 2 together have received the amount from

the hands of the complainant and when the transaction has gone

wrong, it was the bounden duty of the petitioner to return the

money to the complainant. Therefore, the concerned Courts have
10

answered the applications on merit. This court in exercise of its

jurisdiction under Section 482 of the Cr.P.C. should not in any way

interfere and undo what the two Courts have done.

  8. I have given my anxious consideration to the submissions

made by the learned counsel for the respective parties and have

perused the material on record.

  9. The afore-narrated facts are all a matter of record.      The

transactions between the parties begin by an electronic mail

communication initially on 05.08.2021. The e-mail trail between

the parties read as follows:

  "On Thursday, 5 August, 2021, 10:52:58 am IST, Sagar
  Enterprises<info@sagarenterpriseshb.com>

  Kindly send payment receipt.

  hemanth shekar <hemanth ec2007@yahoo.co.in> wrote:

  Good Morning Madam,

  Please send us the proforma invoice for 40 Liters ASAP. Please
  mention that 50% advance to be paid now and balance 50%
  within 30 days from the date of delivery.

  Once the proforma invoice is received, we will transfer the
  money and confirm. Accordingly please arrange to ship the
  material by today itself.
                        11

Can you please share the GST certificate for this entity? Also
please share us the recently filed GSTR return!!

Most importantly, please share the invoice copy for the 1 Liter
sample shipment that was sent 2 weeks back!!

Thanks.

Regards,
Mr. Hemanthshekar
Partner: Chandru and Co.
Bangalore, India. PIN : 560 010."

xxxx

On Thursday, 5 August, 2021, 11:46:37 am IST, hemanth
shekar wrote:

Good Morning Madam,

Payment of 57 Lacs has been made today. Please see
below transaction reference details:

Please dispatch this order of 40 Liters today itself and confirm.
Share the tracking #. This is bit urgent.

Product should be shipped in 1 Liter containers (40 Nos) without
any additional labeling apart from the product name "Bio
Champacalin Fluid'.

Regards,
Mr. Hemanthshekar
Partner: Chandru and Co.
12

Bangalore, India. PIN: 560010.
Mob: +91 99000 77688

Xxxx

On Friday, August 6, 2021, 12:23 PM, Sagar Enterprises
info@sagarenterpriseshb.com wrote:

We are arranging your order.

hemanth shekar wrote:

Hello Madam,

Please confirm if the product is shipped and share the tracking

. Thanks.

Regards,
Mr. Hemanthshekar
Partner: Chandru and Co.
Bangalore, India. PIN: 560 010.
Mob: +91 99000 77688

xxxxx

On Tue, Aug 10, 2021 hemanth shekar
wrote:

Madam,

We are arranging for the balance payment of INR 57
Lakhs for the balance 20 Liters by 4 PM today.
Please ask your team to be ready with the shipment of balance
20 Liters by today itself.
Please use express courier for the same. We need this very
URGENTLY!!

Please don't miss this time. Also we asked for 1 Liter container
but you have shipped 4 cans of 5 Liters each. Please service the
order based on our requirement!!

Regards,
13

Mr. Hemanthshekar
Partner: Chandru and Co.
Bangalore, India. PIN : 560 010.
Mob: +91 99000 77688

From. Sagar Enterprises (sagarenterprises055@gmail.com)
To: hemanth_ec2007@yahoo.co.in
Date: Tuesday, 10 August, 2021, 12:02 pm-IST

The Lab Director said that what was dispatched is 20 liters and
due huge debts that are unpaid by some customers, they were
unable to dispatch a total 40 liters. They have suggested you
pay the balance for 20 liters to enable them dispatch the
remaining 20 liters.

Please confirm the date and time for payment and we shall
provide you with account details to deposit to enable them
dispatch the remaining 20 liters. Thanks for your understanding.

hemanth shekar wrote:

Hello madam,

Please update the status of the shipment we are in urgent basis
as we need to order 560 liters
more immmediately

So please don't delay the order
Reply us the mail immediately

Sent from Yahoo Mail for iPhone

Xxxxx

From. Sagar Enterprises (sagarenterprises055@gmail.com)
To: hemanth_ec2007@yahoo.co.in
Date: Tuesday, 10 August, 2021, 03:40 pm IST

ADHERE STRICTLY TO PAYMENT INSTRUCTION.

PAYMENT INSTRUCTIONS. KINDLY MAKE THE PAYMENT
AS INSTRUCTED.
14

 SAGAR ENTERPRISES
 DBS BANK
 868210061612
 IFSC: dbss0in0868
 BRANCH:NEW MUMBAI
 PAN-FZAPP9536A
 GST:27FZAPP9536A1Z9
 AMOUNT: 30,00,000/- INR
 =================

 MAHI ENTERPRISE
 IDBI BANK
 AC: 0009102000081360
 IFSC: IBKL0000009
 PAN: AQPPS1841D
 BRANCH: CG ROAD

 GST: 24AQPPS1841D1ZS

 AMOUNT: 27,00,000/-INR."

 The transaction goes wrong. A complaint comes to be

registered against certain accused persons - accused Nos.1 and 2,

pursuant to which, a crime comes to be registered in Crime

No.413/2021. The police after investigation file a charge sheet in

C.C.No.27075/2023 against the accused. In the interregnum, a

requisition is made by the Investigating Officer to the Manager of

the IDBI Bank, Branch at C.G.Road, Ahmedabad, to freeze the

account of the petitioner. The order of the concerned Court dated

01.09.2021, on the requisition reads as follows:
15

"1-9-2021

  PI Central CEN PS has

filed requisition praying this
court to obtain permission to
seize the amount lying in the
bank account of accused.
Said requisition is
herewith put up for orders.

                The I.O. has filed present requisition seeking
        to permit him to seize the amount of
        Rs.1,12,15,884/-      freezed    by   him,     bearing
        No.0009102000081360 of IDBI Bank, C.G. road,
        Gujrat branch belonging to Mahi Enterprises. It is
        alleged that the aforesaid accused of this case
        illegally gained money by transferring an amount of
        Rs.1.17 crores from complainant assuring to supply
        particular fluid and thereby he has cheated
        complainant. It is further alleged that in order to
        conceal the illegally gained money, the above
        amount is transferred to various bank accounts
        including the above bank. Hence, it is prayed to
        allow the requisition.

              Satisfied with grounds that the alleged
        amount is part and parcel of amount
        transferred by complainant and if same is not
        ordered to be seized, it may hamper the
        investigation of the case. Further I.O. may be
        permitted to seize the said amount by strictly
        following the provisions of [Sec.102](https://indiankanoon.org/doc/648213/) of Cr.P.C.
        Hence, following is:

                              ORDER The requisition filed by I.O. dated 31-8-
        2021 is allowed. The I.O. is permitted to seize
        the aforesaid amount of Rs.1,12,15,884/-,
        bearing account No.0009102000081360 of
        IDBI Bank, C.G. road, Gujrat branch belonging
        to Mahi Enterprise, by strictly complying
        provisions of [Sec. 102](https://indiankanoon.org/doc/648213/) of Cr.P.C.

Sd/-

01/09/2021
I ACMM, Bengaluru."

1. Two applications are filed, one by the complainant and

another by M/s. Mahi Enterprises - the petitioner herein. The

application filed by the complainant under Sections 451 and 457 of

the Cr.P.C. seeking interim custody of the amount seized by the

Investigating Officer, reads as follows:

"APPLICATION UNDER SECTION 451 & 457 OF THE
CODE OF CRIMINAL PROCEDURE

The petitioner in the above case most respectfully
submits as follows:

1. It is submitted that, the petitioner herein has filed a
   complaint before the Central CEN crime PS on 26-08-2021
   against the accused persons then, the complainant police have
   registered the FIR in their crime No-413/2021 for the offence
   punishable under sections 66(D) of the IT Act 2008 and section
   419, 420 of IPC regarding the cheating of Rs.1,17,00,000/- to
   the petitioner.

2. It is submitted that, the brief facts of the case is that, the
   Petitioner herein is running a company by name, Chandru and
   Company and he has got the business deal from one M/s. Sagar
   Enterprises represented by one Mrs.R.Sagar and company
   situated at Guwahati and M/s Centric Pharmaceutical Limited
   having its Head Quarters at United Kingdom and had discussions
   with the Petitioner herein through mail, phone and skype and
   later on 19-07-2021 one Mr. Rato Gibson Jude reaches the
   Petitioner over phone and told him that, he is in requirement of

an Indian Exporter, who can export Indian Products (Herbal
Extracts) named 'BIO CHAMPACALIN FLUID' to M/s. Centric
Pharmaceuticals Limited at United Kingdom, who can supply the
product at USD 4000/ Liter and the said Centric Pharmaceuticals
Limited at United Kingdom, will buy it at USD 8500 and the
difference /profit amount will be shared equally.

1. It is submitted that, as such the representative of said person, one Mr. Christopher, CEO of M/s. Centric Pharmaceuticals has told the Petitioner to arrange one Liter of Fluid by 24th July 20201 and his International representative will meet him India and check the quality etc. On enquiry with M/S. Sagar Enterprises, they have stated that, they can supply the required quantity with 100% advance. As such got 1 liter and contacted the above said Mr. Christopher through mail and he replied that, International representative to India will him. Then on confirmation by M/s Sagar Enterprises, the Petitioner has sent Rs. 3,00,000/- to Sagar Enterprises. Later one Indian representative Rayphilips told the Petitioner that, he cannot come to Bangalore due to some reason and he told the Petitioner to bring 1 liter fluid to Delhi, and he can got it checked there. Then the Petitioner met him in a hotel at Delhi and he got a sample gave an amount of USD 500 and left the place saying that, he will check within an hour or two and went away and later he came back and told that, there the labs are not functioning properly and same has to be checked in Mumbai and he told the Petitioner to leave to Bangalore and he only will check the same in Mumbai and on successful he will inform the Petitioner etc., Later he has assured about the continuous supply agreement. Later as per the request of the Petitioner, M/S. Sagar Enterprises issued a Proforma invoice for 40 liters and told him to pay a money. A such an amount of Rs.1,14,00,000/- has been deposited to the bank account of M/s. Sagar Enterprisers. On 13-08-2021, when the Petitioner asked M/s. Sagar Enterprises about the availability of Stock Inspection, they told that, company will only allow stock inspection of 80-100 liters and not 40 liters. Then the Petitioner asked M/s. Sagar Enterprises to return the money as they are willing to return the product as same can be returned within 7 days from purchase without any with full money back guaranteed. Then the M/s.Sagar Enterprises also not responded and not returned the money and the said Christopher's phone

also switched off and Rayphilip's phone also switched off.
No response from anybody. In fact it relevant to mention that,
the above said M/s. Sagar Enterprises has 'contravened to the
agreed terms between the Petitioner and it and in fact on
05-08-2021 an amount of Rs. 30,00,000/- and Rs.27,00,000/-
have been paid on two occasion, totally Rs. 57,00,000/-, On 10-
08-2021 an amount of Rs. 27,00,000/- and 30,00,000/- has
also paid. As such totally 1,14,00,000/-has been paid by the
Petitioner. In fact the said amount was for 40 liters, but on
opening the product sent by M/s. Sagar Enterprises, it is noticed
that, there is only 20 liters contrary to the agreed terms of 50%
advance. On questioning the same with M/s. Sagar Enterprises,
they told that, recently they have suffered loss due to short
payments so they have sent only the quantity equal to the price
paid. In fact same is contrary to the agreed terms. On
continuous approach, the M/s. Sagar Enterprises informed the
Petitioner that, they will make refund the said amount of
Rs.1,14,00,000/- shortly by 23-08-2021, but not refunded. As
such on trying to call them, again the phones are switched off,
but for the mail, they have replied that, they will refund the said
amount of Rs.1,14,00,000/- on 07-09-2021, but till date no
payment has been made. In view of the above said act of
cheating by M/s. Sagar Enterprises through online and thereby
cheated the Petitioner to the tune of Rs.1,14,00,000/- as
mentioned below.

1. It is submitted that, In fact, all the above said amount has been transferred to the respective bank accounts shown above as per the instructions and directions given by the M/s. Sagar Enterprises. In fact, the Petitioner is having the bank statement to show the above facts. In fact on 04-08-2021 at 01.34.43 p.m

p.m, M/s. Sagar Enterprises have sent an e-mail to the
petitioner herein by attaching the proforma invoice and also the
retails of the 3 bank accounts wherein the Petitioner has to
make the payment. Then the on same day at 03:24 another
mail has been sent to the Petitioner for making payment to the
bank accounts given by them. In fact the complainant has
already sent the amount of Rs. 57,00,000/- to the bank account
of the M/s. Sagar Enterprises only. Hence, the Petitioner herein
has specifically replied that, "As we would get invoice from
one entity, we want to transfer money to one bank
account only pertaining to that entity". Again on same
day, at 3:24, M/s. Sagar Enterprises has sent a mail by giving
two bank accounts belonging to M/s. Sagar Enterprises only.
Later also regarding business transactions and supply of fluid,
there were several e-mail communications have been taken
place. As such on 10-08-2021 at 03:40 p.m, the above said
M/s. Sagar Enterprises have sent an e-mail stating that, the
amount to be paid to DBS Bank Account of M/s. Sagar
Enterprises to the tune of Rs. 30,00,000/-, and IDBI Bank
account of MAHI ENTERPRISE to the tune of Rs. 27,00,000/-. It
is also mentioned in the said mail that, the payment instructions
to be strictly adhered. In other words, it is mentioned that,
"ADHERE STRICTLY TO PAYMENT INSTRUCTION". Hence in
view of the same, having no option in order to continue the
deal, the Petitioner herein has sent the amount to the said
account i.e., MAHI ENTERPRISE.

1. It is submitted that, in fact now by filing a memo, the
   Investigating Officer has added the names of the accused
   persons in the above case, i.e., A1) Sagar Enterprises, A2)
   Ray Pilip A3) Mahi Enterprises. The above said M/s. Sagar
   Enterprises has instructed the Petitioner to deposit the amount
   to the above said MAHI ENTERPRISE, it is nothing but the
   conspiracy between M/s. Sagar Enterprises and MAHI
   ENTERPRISE. Hence the quantity of the amount deposited to a
   particular account is immaterial in view of the fact that, the
   proceeds of the crime has been distributed between the
   accounts maintained by the above said M/s. Sagar Enterprises
   and Mahi Enterprises. By considering the said aspects, the
   Investigating officer has seized the said amount. Hence the
   Petitioner herein is entitled to the release of the above said
   amount in his favour.

2. It is submitted that, it is the specific case of the Petitioner
   that, in view of the above said business transactions, the above
   said M/s. Sagar Enterprises has committed cheating on the
   Petitioner and thereby Petitioner has suffered severe loss. Later
   during the investigation, the concerned investigating officer has
   found that the amount concerned to the above offence is lying
   in the bank account and as such, the investigating officer has
   filed a requisition on 01.09.2021 before this Hon'ble Court
   requesting and prayed to give permission to seize the amount
   lying in the bank account of the accused. This Hon'ble Court
   has considered the case on record and passed an order
   on: 01.09.2021 itself permitting the concerned
   investigating officer to seize the aforesaid amount of Rs,
   1,12,15,884/- of IDBI Bank, C.G.Road, Gujarat Branch
   belonging to Mahi Enterprises.

3. It is submitted that, after passing the order by this
   Hon'ble Court, the concerned Investigating Officer has
   seized the said amount and after seizing the said amount
   he had filed one more requisition seeking permission to
   deposit the seized amount to the account of this Hon'ble
   Court i.e., C.M.M Court vide D.D. No.086305 in CRCD
   along with PF No.14/21. Later, this Hon'ble Court was
   pleased to hear the matter and after hearing this Hon'ble
   Court was pleased to pass an order by permitting the
   investigating officer to deposit the said D.D. amount in
   CRCD and directed the office to accept the same. Now,
   the above said amount of Rs.1,12,15,884/- is lying in the
   account of this Hon'ble Court as stated supra.

4. It is submitted that, as stated supra, the concerned
   investigating officer has seized the amount from the
   accused company and said amount is belonging to the
   Petitioner herein. The concerned investigating officer is
   also mentioned in his report before this Hon'ble Court
   that, the above said amount is pertaining to the
   Petitioner herein i.e., transacted amount as stated in the
   complaint. Hence, there is no legal embargo for this
   Hon'ble Court to release the above said amount in favour
   of the Petitioner herein.

5. It is submitted that, the above said M/s. Sagar
   Enterprises has received the amount from the Petitioner

herein, to the account of itself and to the account of one
M/s Mahi Enterprises, who is also hand in glove with the
M/s. Sagar Enterprises. The instructions given by M/s.
Sagar Enterprises to the Petitioner herein, directing the
Petitioner to deposit the amount to the above account to
M/s Mahi Enterprises itself shows that, M/s. Sagar
Enterprises has received the above said amount of
Rs.1,14,00,000/- from the Petitioner herein through
M/s.Mahi Enterprises illegal and hence the said amount
may be released in favour of the Petitioner herein.

1. It is submitted that, the petitioner is very much in
   need of the above said amount lying in the accounts of
   the accused which amount actually belongs to the
   petitioner. The above said amount is very much
   necessary for the petitioner herein to do his day today
   business transactions. It will not serve any useful
   purpose if it is idle.

2. It is submitted that, the petitioner is the absolute
   owner for an amount of Rs.1,12,15,884/- as stated supra
   and petitioner is the complainant before the police
   regarding cheating of the said amount by the accused
   persons. In fact there is no any counter/ rival claim from
   anybody regarding the above said amount and hence,
   petitioner is entitled for the possession of the same.
   Moreover there are no any other rival claims for the said
   amount.

3. It is submitted that, the petitioner is ready to execute
   the necessary Bond and undertakes to abide by all the
   conditions that may be imposed by this Hon'ble court in
   the event of allowing this application.

Wherefore, the Petitioner in the above case most
respectfully prays that, this Hon'ble Court be pleased to
pass an interim order to release the amount of
Rs.1,12,15,884/- (Rupees One Crore Twelve lakhs Fifteen
Thousand Eight Hundred and Eighty Four only) which is
subjected by the Petitioner police in the P.F. No.14/2021
in the above case, which is deposited by the investigating
officer to the account of this Hon'ble Court (CMM Court)
vide D.D. No.086305 in CRCD, as per the order passed by

  this Hon'ble Court on 01.09.2021, in favour of the
  Petitioner herein, pending disposal of the above case to
  meet the justice and equity.

Petitioner's bank Account details:

CHANDRU & Co.

HDFC Bank
A/c. No. 50200033196201
IFSC Code: HDFC0001373
Branch: Rajajinaghar
Bengaluru-560010"

The concerned Court issues notice even to the present

petitioner and thereafter, passes the following order:

"The application filed by the petitioner M/s. Chandru &
Co. under Sec.451 and 457 of Cr.P.C. dated 09-09-2021 is
hereby allowed.

The amount of Rs.1,12,15,844/-seized by I.O.as per
P.F.No.14/2021 and deposited before this Court under
CR.C.D. No.3669 dated 04.09.2021, shall be released to
interim custody of petitioner on execution of Indemnity
Bond for Rs.1,12,15,884/-with two local sureties for
likesum, undertaking to satisfy future rival claims if any.

Condition:

1. Petitioner shall deposit aforesaid amount of Rs.1,12,15,884/- before this Court as and when directed to do so, if any rival claim is filed in future." Thereafter, the petitioner files an application seeking for a

direction for defreezement of the account and to afford access to

the account for performance of his business activities, which reads

as follows:

"1. The complainant police have registered a crime in Cr.
No.413/2021 against the accused for the offences
punishable under Section 66(d) of Information Technology
Act, read with Section 419 and 420 of Indian Penal Code
based on the complaint lodged by one Hemanth Shekhar.

1. It is a case of the informant that they are engaged in the
   business running under the name and style M/s Chandru
   and company. Further it is the case of the complainant that
   they received a business offer through email for exporting
   an Indian product BIO CHAMPACALIN FLUID to UK. Upon
   receiving the mail, the complainant contacted them and the
   business deal was to procure the fluid from the Indian
   company i.e., M/s Sagar Enterprises and export the same
   to Centric Pharma situated in U.K. In this context, it is
   further alleged in the complaint that in relation to the
   above said business transaction, a sum of Rs.3,00,000/-
   was transferred on 22.07.2021 to said M/s Sagar
   Enterprises as an advance for purchasing one liter of
   sample fluid Later on 05.08.2021 Rs.30,00,000/- was
   transferred to HDFC Bank belonged to M/s Sagar
   Enterprises and Rs.27,00,000/- was transferred to DBS
   Bank, and on 10.08.2021 Rs.27,00,000/- was transferred
   to the current account of the applicant - Mahi Enterprises
   with IDBI Bank CG Road branch, Amdavad.

2. Further the complainant alleges in the complaint that after
   transferring the amount of Rs.1.17 crores, M/s Sagar
   Enterprises have cheated the complainant by failing to
   supply the said oil.

3. The complainant police based on the above said complaint
   started investigation. During the course of investigation,
   the complainant police have seized certain bank accounts
   mentioned in the complaint amongst others, the
   complainant police have frozen the bank accounts

pertaining to the applicant as detailed below and arrayed
him as accused No. 3 in the above crime:

Account Name Account Number IFSC Code Amount
Holder of
Name the
Bank
Mahi IDBI 0009102000081360 IBKL0000009 1,12,15,884/-
Enterprises Bank

1. The applicant submits that he is engaged in the business of
   trading of goods under the name and style of 'Mahi
   Enterprises', a sole proprietorship concern carrying on his
   business of trading in agricultural commodities and related
   activities at Celler/B/3, Kalapurnam Comp. 20/21, Severnt
   Society, CG Road, Navrangpura, Amdavad - 380 009. The
   copy of the Proprietorship Certificate issued by the
   Amdavad Municipal Corporation (Shops and Establishment
   Department) vide Registration
   No.PII/MNM/2900022/000269798 is produced herewith as
   Document No.1.

2. The applicant has been engaged in this business of trading
   of agricultural commodity goods for the past several years
   having a good reputation in his business circle and society.
   The applicant is adutiful and law-abiding citizen engaged in
   his lawful business activities and duly complying with all
   applicable laws and also ensuring due compliance with all
   tax liabilities in respect of his business transactions. The
   copy of the Pan Card, the copy of the Aadhaar Card is
   produced herewith as Document No.2 & 3, respectively.

1. The applicant's business activities include supply of goods
   procured by him to his customers in Amdavad as well to his
   customers in other states. The applicant submits that there
   are no averments against the applicant in either the
   complainant's statement or the FIR for having involved with
   M/s Sagar Enterprises. Further, the Applicant has
   absolutely no connection or business transactions with the
   said M/s Sagar Enterprises.

2. For the purposes of his lawful business transactions, the
   applicant has been using and operating a current account
   with IDBI Bank, C G Road Branch, Amdavad, Gujarat
   bearing A/c No. 0009102000081360.

3. The applicant received a letter from his banker
   stating that there was a communication received by
   the applicant's bank from the Cyber Crime Police
   Station Bengaluru regarding registration of Crime
   No.413/2021 against the applicant and also direction
   of this Hon'ble Court i.e., I ACMM Court Bengaluru in
   the said proceedings directing freezing relation to
   transactions pertaining to M/s Sagar Enterprises.
   Aggrieved by the directions of this Hon'ble Court, the
   applicant is filing the present application.

4. The applicant submits that he has not involved in any
   fraudulent transaction with any of the accused in the
   present proceedings. The complainant police at the
   time of investigation have arrayed him as accused
   No.3 in the above case and proceeded to freeze the
   current account pertaining to the applicant i.e.,
   accused No.03 and seized the amount of
   Rs.1,12,15,884/- vide PF No.14/2021 which belongs
   to the accused No.3

5. The applicant submits that he is unaware of the
   business transaction held between the complainant
   and M/s Sagar Enterprises. The complainant police
   without freezing the Bank Account pertaining to M/s
   Sagar Enterprises has straight away proceeded to
   freeze the current account pertaining to the applicant
   and deposited the amount of Rs.1,12,15,884/- before
   this Hon'ble Court.

6. The applicant/accused No.3 submits that he has not
   illegally gained money by transferring an amount of
   Rs.1.17 crores from complainant.

7. The applicant/accused no.3 submits that he has not
   assured the complainant to supply any particular fluid nor
   directed the complainant to deposit the money in the name

   of the applicant. Thereby he has not cheated the
   complainant in any manner or played any fraud.

8. The complaint does not disclose any involvement of the
   applicant with the accused M/s Sagar Enterprises or other
   parties who are arrayed as the accused.

9. The applicant submits that the complainant police
   without intimating the same to the applicant has filed
   an application and obtained the order for freezing of
   the abovementioned bank account of the applicant,
   which has caused great hardship to the applicant;
   and the applicant also suffered huge losses as he has
   not been able to carry on his business without being
   able to access the funds in his bank account.

10. The applicant submits that the applicant undertakes to abide
    by any condition that may imposed by this Hon'ble court.

11. The applicant submits that the applicant undertakes to
    execute an indemnity bond for a sum of Rs.1,12,15,884/-
    to the satisfaction of this Hon'ble Court.

12. The applicant undertakes to give surety to the satisfaction of
    this Hon'ble court.

13. The applicant shall not tamper with the bank accounts
    belonging to the applicant and agrees to be bound by any
    future order of this Hon'ble Court in this regard.

PRAYER

Wherefore the Applicant most respectfully prays that this
Hon'ble court be pleased to direct the complainant police
to de-freeze the account pertaining to the applicant and
release the amount of Rs.1,12,15,884/- as mentioned in
the current account bearing No.0009102000081360
which is held in IDBI Bank CG Road Branch, Amdavad,
Gujarat and permit the Applicant to carry on his business
activities, in the interest of justice and equity."

The order of the concerned Court on the afore-quoted

application of the petitioner reads as follows:

"REASONS

1. Point No.1: The complainant police have initially
   registered the present case against unknown accused persons
   for offences punishable under sections 419, 420 of I.P.C. and
   under sections 66(D) of Information Technology Act 2000, on
   specific allegation that firm of complainant received a call from
   an unknown person and induced to purchase BIO CHAMPACALIN
   FLUID from one M/s. Sagar enterprises and to resell said fluid to
   it, which would fetch them huge profits. Thereafter, complainant
   contacted M/s. Sagar enterprises and transferred
   Rs.1,17,00,000/- though its bank account held in HDFC Bank,
   DBS Bank and IDBI Bank. Thereafter, the said firm delivered
   fake fluid and thereby cheated the complainant firm.

2. Thereafter it shows that I.O. has immediately got
   freezed the account of so called accused, i.e., present petitioner
   in which the aforesaid illegally gained amount was transferred
   by accused I.e., in the account of Mahi Enterprises bearing
   No.0009102000081360 held in IDBI Bank, CG Road Branch,
   Gujarath. It further shows that as per order dated 01.09.2021,
   I.O. has seized the above amount and later got deposited it in
   CRCD of this Court under CRCD No.3669 on 04.09.2021.

3. It further shows that as per the application filed by
   defacto complainant dated 9.9.2021, this court has released
   aforesaid amount of Rs.1,12,15,884/- in favour of said
   complainant on condition to deposit the same before this court
   as and when directed to do so.

4. Now, the petitioner/accused No.3 by name Bhavik
   Lalith Bhai Parikh has come up with present application seeking
   to defreeze aforesaid account and to release entire freezed
   amount in his favour. counsel for said petitioner has vehemently
   argued that as per the case of the complainant himself only
   Rs.27 lakhs was transferred to the account of petitioner and
   inspite of it, he has got transferred aforesaid huge amount of

Rs. 1.12 crores, which is hard earned money of this petitioner.
She has further argued that absolutely, there is no nexus
between present and called Sagar petitioner/accused No.3 is
entitled for Enterprises. Hence, the petitioner defreezing of
above account for smooth administration of business and also
entitled for refund of amount seized from his account. In
support of arguments, said Counsel has relied on copy of
Certificate issued by Amdabad Municipal Corporation in favour of
the petitioner under Shops & Establishment Act and copy of PAN
card and Aadhaar Card.

1. On the other hand LC for defacto complainant
   vehemently argued that aforesaid Petitioner/accused No.3 in
   collusion with Sagar Enterprises has cheated the complainant by
   hatching. a conspiracy and the very transfer of part amount of
   Rs.27 Lakhs to the account of present petitioner itself is a
   strong ground to show his involvement in above offence.

2. Further on perusal of objections of learned
   Sr.APP and report of I.O, it shows that the present
   petitioner/accused No.3 has not appeared before I.O.
   despite issuance of repeated notices nor he has put forth
   any documents to show his accumulation of aforesaid
   huge amount by lawful means by producing accounts of
   his firm. It further shows that he has not co-operated
   with investigation and all these aspect raises doubt
   regarding his claim towards aforesaid freezed amount.
   Moreover, though counsel for the petitioner argued the
   email address discloses GST number of the petitioner
   firm, counsel for the complainant has produced memo
   with online copy of GST status, wherein the GST number
   of petitioner shown in email of the complainant is shown
   as invalid. These all aspect raises doubt with regard to
   conduct of the petitioner and it is difficult to believe that
   he has approached the court with clear hands. If at all
   the aforesaid account is defreezed and if above amount is
   released to the custody of petitioner, there are chances
   that the petitioner may repeat similar offence and he may
   flee away for ever with aforesaid amount, which would
   result in irreparable loss and injury to defacto
   complainant. Moreover, filing of requisition by Habibganj
   PS, Bhopal is also ground to believe that the aforesaid
   account of the petitioner is involved in some other cases

and several persons have been subjected to fraudulent
transactions in similar manner. These all aspect does not
entitle the petitioner for release of his aforesaid account
at this stage of investigation much less for release of
amount of Rs.1,12,15,884/-, which is already given to
interim custody of defacto complainant. Hence, the
application filed by the petitioner/accused No.3 deserves
to be rejected. Hence, point No.1 is answered in the
Negative.

1. Point No.2: For the reasons stated and findings given on point No.1 following is :-

ORDER

The application filed by petitioner by
name M/s Mahi Enterprises, represented by
its Proprietor Bhavik Lalith Bhai Parikh under Sec.451 and 457 of Cr.P.C. dated 8.11.2021 is
hereby rejected."
These two afore-quoted orders are called in question by the

petitioner before the revisional Court in Crl.R.P.Nos.34/2024 and

475/2022 respectively. The revisional Court by its orders dated

11.11.2024, rejects both the petitions filed by the petitioner and

affirmed the orders passed by the concerned Court. It directs

release of the amount in favour of the complainant with certain

conditions. The orders passed in Crl.P.Nos.34/2024 reads as

follows:

"REASONS

1. POINT NO.1:- The petitioner has filed application
   under Section 5 of the Limitation Act to condone the delay of
   849 days in filing the revision petition. In support of his
   application the petitioner has sworn to an affidavit wherein it is
   stated that he had preferred revision petition No.475/2022, but
   had not specifically assailed the order dated 27/09/2021 passed
   by the I ACMM, Bengaluru. In order to ensure the best interest
   of justice and to iron out any procedural hurdles, if any he has
   preferred the petition separately assailing the order dated
   27/09/2021. The delay in filing petition is neither intentional nor
   deliberate. Therefore, prayed to allow the application.

2. The Hon'ble Apex Court in catena of cases has held
   that "sufficient cause should be given liberal construction so as
   to advance substantial justice when there is no inaction, no
   negligence or want of bonafide imputable to the appellant. The
   object of the Limitation Act is not to destroy and take away the
   rights of the parties. This being its objective, provisions to
   condone the delay has always been interpreted with a liberal
   touch."

3. On perusal of the above aspect I find no malafide
   intention on the part of the appellant for the delay in preferring
   the appeal. However in order to meet the ends of justice it is
   just and proper to condone the delay as sought for. However,
   inconvenienced caused to the respondent may be met with by
   imposing cost on the appellant. Under the circumstances the
   situation of the appellant is worthy of protection under section 5 of Limitation Act, in view of her illness. Therefore point No.1 is
   answered in the Affirmative.

1. POINT No.2: The petitioner has filed this revision
   petition challenging the order dated 27/09/2021 in Crime
   No.413/2013 (C.C.No.27075/2023) on the file of I ACMM,
   Bengaluru passed on application under Section 451 and 457 of
   Cr.P.C by the defacto complainant.

2. The counsel for respondent No.2 has vehemently
   argued regarding the maintainability of the revision petition
   before this Court. He has categorically stated that since the
   application is made for interim custody of the amount before the
   trial Court, the revision petition is not maintainable. Though I

find some force in the arguments advanced by the counsel for
respondent, it is to be noted that the counsel for petitioner has
relied upon a ruling reported in Criminal Revision Petition
100268/2023 in the case of Mustafa vs State of
Karnataka wherein the Hon'ble High Court of Karnataka relying
upon various judgments that when the revision petition is
decided against the petitioner, he has got a right to prefer
revision petition against that order which cannot be construed
as an interlocutory order for the purpose of Section 397 of
Cr.P.C. In view of the finding in the above said judgment, it is to
be considered that the revision petition of this nature is not
maintainable.

1. The petitioner has challenged the order of the learned
   Magistrate in allowing the application filed by the defacto
   complainant under Section 451 and 457 of Cr.P.C for release of
   the amount seized by the police to the tune of Rs.1,12,15,884/-
   under PF No.14/21 of CEN Police Station. The contention of the
   petitioner is that the defacto complainant transferred a sum of
   Rs.27,00,000/- in favour of the petitioner company. The rest of
   the amount seized by the police is the hard earned money of the
   petitioner and therefore the learned Magistrate ought not to
   have rejected the application filed by the petitioner. Though I
   find some force in the arguments advanced by the counsel for
   petitioner, it is to be noted that the available materials on
   record indicates that the petitioner is none other than the
   associate of the accused No.1 who entered into agreement with
   the defacto complainant and to whom the amount was
   transferred from the defacto complainant.

2. I have perused the materials placed before the
   Court wherein it indicates that on the basis of the request
   of Sagar Enterprises along with whom the defacto
   complainant had transaction, the amount was transferred
   to the account of Mahi Enterprises. The email
   communication to that effect placed on record clearly
   indicates the said fact. Apart from the above the
   objections filed by the learned Public Prosecutor indicates
   that the case came to be registered against the petitioner
   by Bhopal Police in connection with similar offence.
   Therefore, it has to be ascertained whether the petitioner
   is jointly operating with Sagar Enterprises. This can be

ascertained only after a full fledged trial. At this stage the
available material on record indicates that the defacto
complainant has transferred the amount to the account of
Sagar Enterprises and Mahi Enterprises. Therefore the
fact that the amount which is deposited in the account of
the petitioner being proceeds of the crime cannot be
ruled out. Further same can be ascertained after a full
fledged trial. It is also not in dispute that the complainant
has lost a sum of Rs.1,17,00,000/- by transferring it to
the account of the petitioner and Sagar Enterprises. Since
there is every possibility that the amount deposited in the
account of the petitioner being proceeds of the crime, I
find no fault in the order of the learned Magistrate in
releasing the amount seized under PF No.14/2021 in
favour of the defacto complainant who actually lost the
amount due to the fraudulent act of the Sagar Enterprises
as well as the petitioner.

1. The learned counsel for the petitioner has
   vehemently argued that before freeing of account and
   deposits of the amount standing in his account before the
   trial Court and prior to release of the same to the defacto
   complainant, notice has not been issued to the petitioner.

2. I have gone through the materials produced by
   the petitioner himself before the Court which indicates
   that CEN Police, Central Division have issued notice under Section 41(a) of Cr.P.C to the proprietor of M/s. Mahi
   Enterprises on 14/9/2021, 23/9/2021, 25/9/2021, but
   the petitioner has not responded to the said notice issued
   by the IO. When the petitioner has not responded to the
   notice issued to him by the IO, he is estopped from taking
   a plea that notice was not issued to him before release of
   the amount in favour of the defacto complainant. In
   support of his contention the counsel for petitioner has relied
   upon a judgment passed by the Hon'ble High Court of Karnataka
   in WP No.2865/2022 (GM-RES) in the case of Sri. Rahul
   Chari and another vs State of Karnataka and others,
   wherein the order of the learned Magistrate in releasing the
   amount to the complainant was set aside.

3. I have gone through the findings given in the said
   judgment wherein it indicates that in the said case the petitioner
   was not an accused. He was not aware of the registration of the
   case. Without he being the accused his account was freezed and
   amount was released in favour of the defacto complainant.

4. In the said case, the petitioner was only an account holder
   and not an accused. Under the said circumstances the Hon'ble
   High Court passed an order to issue notice to the account holder
   and set aside the order of the learned Magistrate. The relevant
   portion of the judgment of the Hon'ble High Court is extracted
   below:

"This Court is coming across scores and
scores of cases where the account is frozen,
defrozen and the amount that the complainant is
due from a suspect or an accused is transferred to
the account of the complainant from the account of
third parties which action is contrary to all cannons
of law".
But unlike the said case in this case the account does not belong
to third party, but account belong to the petitioner and the said
amount was ordered to be released in favour of the defacto
complainant. Under these circumstances, the ruling relied upon
by the learned counsel for petitioner is not applicable to the
facts and circumstances of this case.

1. The learned counsel for respondent No.2 has argued to the effect that the order passed by the learned Magistrate is proper. He has argued that the petitioner is none other than the accused in this case. Under these circumstances the order passed by the learned Magistrate is just and proper. In support of his contention, the learned counsel for respondent No.2 has relied upon judgment reported in ILR 1984 Karnataka 923 in the case of Mangharam and sons vs. R.C.Morzaria and another wherein it is held that :

"In a case like this where the person from
whom the property is seized also claims the
custody of that property, two things are required to
be considered. Normally the person from whom the

property is seized is entitled to the custody of the
same (with or without conditions) but he will not be
entrusted with the property if there is prima facie
material on record showing that he has committed
some offence re: the same. In such an event, the
claim, if any, of the other person, or the
complainant as in this case, may be considered.
While examining the rival claims the question as to
who was in lawful possession firstly, at the time of
seizure and secondly, earlier that is to say, earlier
to the event which gave cause to that seizure, is
very important. If no prima facie case for any
offence is made out against the person from whom
the property is seized he can be presumed to have
been in lawful possession of the same as the time
of seizure and may be entrusted with it."
21. The learned counsel for respondent has relied upon
the following rulings:

i) 2004 SCC Online Bom 1101 in case of Pirappa
Mahadeo Birajdar vs. M/s. Arti Co. & others.

ii) 2020 SCC Online MP 4592 in case of Aruni Sahgal
vs. State of Madhya Pradesh.

iii) Crl.M.C No.2622 of 2014 (D) in case of Jaison vs.
State of Kerala and another.
The above citations relied by the counsel for respondent No.2 is
passed by other High Courts. They have got persuasive value.
But the counsel for the petitioner has relied upon a judgment of
the Hon'ble High Court in Criminal Revision Petition
No.100268/2023 dated 18/07/2023, wherein relying upon
various judgments Hon'ble High Court observed that the
revision petition against the order under Section 451 of Cr.P.C is
maintainable. Therefore, the rulings relied upon by the counsel
for respondent cannot be taken into consideration.

1. I have perused the orders passed by the learned Magistrate wherein it is stated that the petitioner who is accused No.3 has not appeared before the IO despite

issuance repeated notices nor he has put-forth any
documents to show his accumulation of aforesaid huge
amount by lawful means by producing amounts of his
firm. It further shows that he has not co-operated with
investigation and all these aspects raises doubt regarding
his claim towards aforesaid freezed amount. The learned
Magistrate also held that the online copy of GST status,
wherein the GST number of petitioner shown in email of
the complainant is shown as invalid. He has also
discussed regarding the involvement of the petitioner in
this case. Considering all the above aspects the learned
Magistrate has rightly rejected the application filed by the
petitioner and I find no ground to interfere with the
orders passed by the learned Magistrate.

1. On perusal of the materials placed before the
   Court and orders passed by the learned Magistrate there
   is nothing on record to come to a conclusion that
   correctness, legality or proprietary of the findings
   recorded by the trial Court suffers from all the infirmities.
   It is to be noted that the amount was released to the
   interim custody of the defacto complainant. There are all
   the opportunities for the petitioner to put forward his
   claim during the conclusion of the trial. Therefore I find
   no reason to interfere with the finding of the learned trial
   Court. Therefore, the point No.2 is answered in the
   negative.

2. Point No.3:- In the result I proceed to pass the
   following:-

ORDER

The petition filed by the petitioners
under Section 397(3) of Code of Criminal
Procedure Code is hereby dismissed with
cost."

The order passed in Crl.R.P.No.475/2022 reads as follows:

".... .... ....

REASONS

1. POINT NO.1 :- The petitioner has filed this revision
   petition challenging the order dated 18/05/2022 in Crime
   No.413/2013 on the file of I ACMM, Bengaluru passed on
   application under Section 451 and 457 of Cr.P.C by petitioner/
   accused No.3.

2. The counsel for respondent No.2 has vehemently
   argued regarding the maintainability of the revision petition
   before this Court. He has categorically stated that since the
   application is made for interim custody of the amount before the
   trial Court. the revision petition is not maintainable. Though I
   find some force in the arguments advanced by the counsel for
   respondent. it is to be noted that the counsel for petitioner has
   relied upon a ruling reported in Criminal Revision Petition
   100268/2023 in the case of Mustafa vs State of
   Karnataka wherein the Hon'ble High Court of Karnataka relying
   upon various judgments held that when the revision petition is
   decided against the petitioner. he has got a right to prefer
   revision petition against that order which cannot be construed
   as an interlocutory order for the purpose of Section 397 of
   Cr.P.C. In view of the finding in the above said judgment, it is to
   be considered that the revision petition of this nature is
   maintainable.

3. The petitioner has challenged the order of the learned
   Magistrate in dismissing the application filed by him under Section 451 and 457 of Cr.P.C for release of the amount seized
   by the police to the tune of Rs. 1,12,15,884/- under PF
   No.14/21 of CEN Police Station. The contention of the petitioner
   is that the defacto complainant transferred a sum of
   Rs.27,00,000/- in favour of the petitioner company. The rest of
   the amount seized by the police is the hard earned money of the
   petitioner and therefore the learned Magistrate ought not to
   have rejected the application filed by the petitioner. Though I
   find some force in the arguments advanced by the counsel for
   petitioner, it is to be noted that the available materials on
   record indicates that the petitioner is none other than the
   associate of the accused No.1 who entered into agreement with
   the defacto complainant and to whom the amount was
   transferred from the defacto complainant.

4. I have perused the materials placed before the
   Court wherein it indicates that on the basis of the request
   of Sagar Enterprises along with whom the defacto
   complainant had transaction, the amount was transferred
   to the account of Mahi Enterprises. The email
   communication to that effect placed on record clearly
   indicates the said fact. Apart from the above the
   objections filed by the learned Public Prosecutor indicates
   that the case came to be registered against the petitioner
   by Bhopal Police in connection with similar offence.
   Therefore, it has to be ascertained whether the petitioner
   is jointly operating with Sagar Enterprises. This can be
   ascertained only after a full fledged trial. At this stage the
   available material on record indicates that the defacto
   complainant has transferred the amount to the account of
   Sagar Enterprises and Mahi Enterprises. Therefore the
   fact that the amount which is deposited in the account of
   the petitioner being proceeds of the crime cannot be
   ruled out. Further same can be ascertained after a full
   fledged trial. It is also not in dispute that the complainant
   has lost a sum of Rs.1,17,00,000/- by transferring it to
   the account of the petitioner and Sagar Enterprises. Since
   there is every possibility that the amount deposited in the
   account of the petitioner being proceeds of the crime, I
   find no fault in the order of the learned Magistrate in
   releasing the amount seized under PF No.14/2021 in
   favour of the defacto complainant who actually lost the
   amount due to the fraudulent act of the Sagar Enterprises
   well as the petitioner.

5. The counsel for petitioner has also advanced his
   arguments that the account of the petitioner is freezed by the
   bank on the request of the concerned police and no purpose
   would be served by freezing the account. He is transacting his
   business through the said account and he requires the said
   account for day today transaction and therefore sought to de-
   freeze the said account and also challenged the order of learned
   Magistrate in dismissing the said application. It is not in dispute
   that the defacto complainant has transferred the amount to the
   account of the petitioner. When the documents are available in
   proof of the same, it is not forthcoming and not explained as to

why a situation arose to defraud the defacto complainant on the
part of the petitioner.

: 15. Apart from the above there are also materials to
show that the petitioner is involved in similar offences and the
Bhopal police are in search of the petitioner and they have also
sought for freezing of the account of the petitioner. Under these
circumstances if an order of de-freezing the account of the
petitioner is passed, definitely there are chances of the
petitioner committing similar offence and there are also chances
of destroying of material, evidence. Further it may also come in
the way of proper investigation of this case as well as case
registered by Bhopal Police. Under these circumstances the
reason assigned by the learned Magistrate dismissing the
application filed for de-freezing the account of the petitioner
does not suffer from any infirmity.

1. The learned counsel for the petitioner has vehemently
   argued that before freeing of account and deposits of the
   amount standing in his account before the trial Court and prior
   to release of the same to the defacto complainant, notice has
   not been issued to the petitioner.

2. I have gone through the materials produced by
   the petitioner himself before the Court which indicates
   that CEN Police, Central Division have issued notice under Section 41(a) of Cr.P.C to the proprietor of M/s. Mahi
   Enterprises on 14/9/2021, 23/9/2021, 25/9/2021, but
   the petitioner has not responded to the said notice issued
   by the IO. When the petitioner has not responded to the
   notice issued to him by the IO, he is estopped from taking
   a plea that notice was not issued to him before release of
   the amount in favour of the defacto complainant. In
   support of his contention the counsel for petitioner has relied
   upon a judgment passed by the Hon'ble High Court of Karnataka
   in WP No.2865/2022 (GM-RES) in the case of Sri. Rahul
   Chari and another vs State of Karnataka and others,
   wherein the order of the learned Magistrate in releasing the
   amount to the complainant was set aside.

3. I have gone through the findings given in the said
   judgment wherein it indicates that in the said case the petitioner
   was not an accused. He was not aware of the registration of the

case. Without he being the accused his account was freezed and
amount was released in favour of the defacto complainant.

1. In the said case, the petitioner was only an account holder and not an accused. Under the said circumstances the Hon'ble High Court passed an order to issue notice to the account holder and set aside the order of the learned Magistrate. The relevant portion of the judgment of the Hon'ble High Court is extracted

"This Court is coming across scores and scores
of cases where the account is frozen, defrozen and the
amount that the complainant is due from a suspect or
an accused is transferred to the account of the
complainant from the account of third parties which
action is contrary to all cannons of law".
But unlike the said case in this case the account does not belong
to third party, but account belong to the petitioner and the said
amount was ordered to be released in favour of the defacto
complainant. Under these circumstances, the ruling relied upon
by the learned counsel for petitioner is not applicable to the
facts and circumstances of this case.

1. The learned counsel for respondent No.2 has argued to the effect that the order passed by the learned Magistrate is proper. He has argued that the petitioner is none other than the accused in this case. Under these circumstances the order passed by the learned Magistrate is just and proper. In support of his contention, the learned counsel for respondent No.2 has relied upon judgment reported in ILR 1984 Karnataka 923 in the case of Mangharam and sons vs. R.C.Morzaria and another wherein it is held that :

"In a case like this where the person from whom
the property is seized also claims the custody of that
property, two things are required to be considered.
Normally the person from whom the property is seized is
entitled to the custody of the same (with or without
conditions) but he will not be entrusted with the
property if there is prima facie material on record
showing that he has committed some offence re: the
same. In such an event, the claim, if any, of the other
person, or the complainant as in this case, may be

considered. While examining the rival claims the
question as to who was in lawful possession firstly. at
the time of seizure and secondly, earlier that is to say,
earlier to the event which gave cause to that seizure, is
very important. If no prima facie case for any offence is
made out against the person from whom the property is
seized he can be presumed to have been in lawful
possession of the same as the time of seizure and may
be entrusted with it."
21. I have perused the orders passed by the learned
Magistrate wherein it is stated that the petitioner who is
accused No.3 has not appeared before the IO despite
issuance of repeated notices nor he has put-forth any
documents to show his accumulation of aforesaid huge
amount by lawful means by producing amounts of his
firm. It further shows that he has not co-operated with
investigation and all these aspects raises doubt regarding
his claim towards aforesaid freezed amount. The learned
Magistrate also held that the online copy of GST status,
wherein the GST number of petitioner shown in email of
the complainant is shown as invalid. He has also
discussed regarding the involvement of the petitioner in
this case. Considering all the above aspects the learned
Magistrate has rightly rejected the application filed by the
petitioner and I find no ground to interfere with the
orders passed by the learned Magistrate.

1. On perusal of the materials placed before the
   Court and orders passed by the learned Magistrate there
   is nothing on record to come to a conclusion that
   correctness, legality or proprietary of the findings
   recorded by the trial Court suffers from all the infirmities.
   It is to be noted that the amount was released to the
   interim custody of the defacto complainant. There are all
   the opportunities for the petitioner to put forward his
   claim during the conclusion of the trial. Therefore I find
   no reason to interfere with the finding of the learned trial
   Court. Therefore, the point No. 1 is answered in the
   negative.

2. Point No.2:- In the result I proceed to pass the
   following:-

ORDER

The petition filed by the petitioners
under Section 397(3), of Code of Criminal
Procedure Code is hereby dismissed with
cost."

(Emphasis added at each instance)

A perusal at the orders passed by the concerned Court and

that of the revisional Court would clearly indicate that the

concerned Court traversing through the entire transactions between

the parties right from the email trail between them that begins from

10.08.2021 and with regard to the transfer of amount or the

transportation of material from the hands of the petitioner -
accused No.2 and in turn to accused No.1 and has rightly directed

to release the amount in favour of the complainant.

1. It is apposite to quote the judgment of the Apex Court in

the case of BIR SINGH v. MUKESH KUMAR1, wherein it is held as

follows:

".... .... ....

1. The appellate court affirmed the aforesaid factual
   findings. The trial court and the appellate court arrived at the
   specific concurrent factual finding that the cheque had

   (2019) 4 SCC 197

   admittedly been signed by the respondent-accused. The trial
   court and the appellate court rejected the plea of the
   respondent-accused that the appellant complainant had
   misused a blank signed cheque made over by the respondent-
   accused to the appellant complainant for deposit of income
   tax, in view of the admission of the respondent-accused that
   taxes were paid in cash for which the appellant complainant
   used to take payment from the respondent in cash.

2. It is well settled that in exercise of revisional
   jurisdiction under Section 482 of the Criminal
   Procedure Code, the High Court does not, in the
   absence of perversity, upset concurrent factual
   findings. It is not for the Revisional Court to re-analyse
   and re-interpret the evidence on record.

3. As held by this Court in Southern Sales &
   Services v. Sauermilch Design and [Handels
   GmbH Southern Sales & Services v. Sauermilch Design
   and Handels GmbH, (2008) 14 SCC 457] , it is a well-
   established principle of law that the Revisional Court
   will not interfere even if a wrong order is passed by a
   court having jurisdiction, in the absence of a
   jurisdictional error. The answer to the first question is
   therefore, in the negative."

(Emphasis supplied)

  The Apex Court in terms of the afore-quoted judgment holds

that the High Courts are not the Revisional Courts to re-analyse and

re-interpret the evidence on record and upset the concurrent

findings rendered by the trial Courts. In that light, no fault can be

found at the hands of the concerned Courts, as the concerned

Courts have imposed certain conditions that in the event of the

complainant losing the case, he shall re-deposit the entire amount

before the concerned Court. In the light of such prediction and

respondent No.2 - complainant prima facie, who has lost the

aforesaid amount and more, with the ploy of accused Nos.1 and 2

and he proving that he is entitled to the said amount, there is no

warrant of interference with the orders which are rendered on

cogent reasons.

1. Finding no merit in these petitions, the petitions stand

rejected.

Sd/-

(M.NAGAPRASANNA)
JUDGE

nvj
CT:MJ/SS