Criminal Appeal Nos. 982 of 1998, 33 of 1999, Criminal Revision Nos. 1318, 1319 of 2007, Criminal Original Petition Nos. 26062 & 26063 of 2007. Case: State and Ors. Vs Hassan Kutti Haji and Ors.. High Court of Madras (India)
| Case Number | Criminal Appeal Nos. 982 of 1998, 33 of 1999, Criminal Revision Nos. 1318, 1319 of 2007, Criminal Original Petition Nos. 26062 & 26063 of 2007 |
| Counsel | For Appellant: Shanmugavelayutham, Public Prosecutor and For Respondents: S. Jayakumar, Adv. |
| Judges | C. T. Selvam, J. |
| Issue | Benami Transactions (Prohibition) Act, 1988 - Sections 3, 4(2), 5(1)(e); Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 (CrPC) - Sections 239, 482; Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988 - Sections 13(1)(e), 13(2); Transfer of Property Act, 1882 - Section 53 |
| Judgement Date | June 24, 2015 |
| Court | High Court of Madras (India) |
Order:
C. T. Selvam, J.
1. As the parties are common in all these matters and the same question is raised for consideration in them, they can be disposed of by a common judgment/common order.
2. Crl.A.Nos. 982 of 1998 & 33 of 1999:
(i) Criminal Appeal No. 982 of 1998 is filed against the common judgment passed by learned Chief Judge, Small Causes Court, Chennai, in Crl.M.P. Nos. 6601, 6602 and 785 of 1997 in Crl.O.P. No. 7 of 1997 and Crl.M.P. No. 863 of 1998 in Crl.M.P. No. 785 of 1997 in Crl.O.P. No. 7 of 1997 dated 11.08.1998 and for a direction to order attachment of the properties mentioned in the application filed by the appellant herein before the trial Court.
(ii) Criminal Appeal No. 33 of 1999 is filed against the common judgment passed by learned Chief Small Causes Judge, Chennai, in Crl.M.P. No. 785 of 1997 in Crl.O.P. No. 7 of 1997 and Crl.M.P. No. 863 of 1998 in Crl.M.P. No. 785 of 1997 in Crl.O.P. No. 7 of 1997 and Crl.O.P. No. 7 of 1997 dated 11.08.1998.
(iii) The case in Crime No. 11/AC/96/HQ, V&A.C. was registered against the accused for offences u/s.13(2) r/w 13(1)(e) of the Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988 (Central Act 49 of 1988). In brief, the prosecution case is that A1, as a Minister of Government of Tamil Nadu and later, a member of the Tamil Nadu Legislative Assembly and as a public servant, had, during the period 1991 to 1996 acquired and possessed in his name and in the names of the accused 2 to 4 properties of value of Rs.1,15,01,352/- and that the same were disproportionate to his known sources of income. The second accused is the wife of the first accused while the accused 3 and 4 are his sons. The State moved Crl.O.P. No. 7 of 1997 before learned Chief Judge, Small Causes Court, Chennai, seeking an order of attachment u/s. 4 of the Criminal Law Amendment Ordinance, 1944 (hereinafter referred to as "Ordinance"), the offence alleged under the Prevention of Corruption Act, 1998 (hereinafter referred to as "Act") being a scheduled offence within the meaning of such Ordinance. The prosecution informed of Nos. 1 to 9 and 12 of the listed properties belonging to the first accused, of his holding a half share in Nos. 10 and 11, of his wife/A2 holding Nos. 13 to 30, of A3, one of his sons, holding Nos. 31 to 40 and of A4, one other son, holding properties listed Nos. 41 to 51.
(iv) Crl.M.P. Nos. 6601 and 6602 of 1997 in Crl.O.P. No. 7 of 1997 were moved by third parties seeking raising of interim attachment passed in respect of Item Nos. 10 and 11 properties under orders in Crl.M.P. No. 785 of 1997 in Crl.O.P. No. 7 of 1997 dated 21.02.1997. Crl.M.P. No. 863 of 1998 in Crl.M.P. No. 785 of 1997 in Crl.O.P. No. 7 of 1997 was moved by the State seeking extension of the order of interim attachment made in Crl.M.P. No. 785 of 1997 in Crl.O.P. No. 7 of 1997 on 21.02.1997. Counters and reply statements were filed and after hearing the counsel for respective parties, all the petitions were disposed of by a common order dated 11.08.1998. The following points were framed for consideration by learned Chief Judge, Small Causes Court, Chennai:
(1) Whether the properties described in the schedule as Item Nos. 1 to 51 are liable for attachment?
(2) Whether the claim petitioners have interest in the properties attached?
(3) Whether the attachment in respect of any of the items in the schedule is liable to be raised?
(v) By order dated 11.08.1998, the attachment of properties standing in the name of A1 was made absolute, the claims of the third party petitioners of interest over Item Nos. 10 and 11 were upheld and attachment of such properties was raised as was the order of interim attachment against properties listed Nos. 13 to 51 standing in the names of accused 2 to 4. Aggrieved by such order, the State has preferred C.A. No. 982 of 1998 and the first accused has preferred C.A. No. 33 of 1999. As regards the holdings of the first accused, the learned Judge has reasoned that properties listed as Item Nos. 1 to 9 and 12 admittedly were acquired by him during the check period and Section 3 of the Ordinance provided for making of an application for attachment if Government had reasonable belief that the person had committed any scheduled offence and property had been procured thereby. Quite rightly, it has been observed that u/s. 5 of the Ordinance, the District Judge was obliged to order ad interim attachment unless he found no prima facie grounds to believe that the person in respect of whom application had been made had committed scheduled offence or procured thereby any money or property. Taking note of the limited scope of enquiry u/s. 5 of the Ordinance, the learned Judge concluded that it was not possible to hold that the first respondent had not by means of the said offence procured any money or property. He, thus, rejected the prayer for raising of attachment of properties standing in the name of the first accused. Again, quite rightly, the learned Judge has allowed the petitions moved by third parties in Crl.M.P. No. 6601 and 6602 of 1997 in Crl.O.P. No. 7 of 1997 on the reasoning that they had purchased Item Nos. 10 and 11 properties under sale deeds prior to attachment and had been owners in their own right. It also was found that there was nothing to inform that such petitioners/third parties had knowledge of the registration of the case against the first accused, though an erroneous line of reasoning has been adopted in touching upon Section 53 of the Transfer of Property Act and in informing that Government could not be considered as a creditor or that no question of...
To continue reading
Request your trial