A.K Sikri, J.— In this petition filed by the petitioner, the petitioner is seeking release of amount which was deposited by her husband with respondent No. 2 i.e Engineering Export Promotion Council (EEPC). The husband of the petitioner late Yash Pal Anand was a merchant exporter of automotive components and was carrying on business in the name and style of M/s. Anand Auto Craft Centre. In the year 1994 CBI registered six cases against him under sections 420, 468/471 read with section 120b of ipc. identical cases of equal numbers were also registered against his three brothers, namely, S/Shri Ashok Anand, Satish Anand and Subhash Anand. It is not in dispute that in all these cases filed against four brothers allegations were identical. When the investigation was on, the petitioner deposited a sum of Rs. 22 lacs with the respondent No. 2. Since there is some dispute as to in what circumstances this amount was deposited by late Yash Pal Anand with the respondent No. 2 I shall advert to this aspect in the later part of this order. In similar fashion, amounts were deposited by his three brothers as well with the respondent No. 2. The trial proceeded against all four brothers. However, Yash Pal Anand died before the conclusion of the trial and, therefore, proceedings against him abated. Insofar as his three brothers are concerned trial resulted in their acquittal and judgment dated 22.6.2001 was rendered by trial Court in this behalf. CBI filed appeals against those acquittals which were also dismissed by this Court on 27.5.2002 No further appeals were filed and, therefore, the said judgment attained finality.
2. After the acquittal of three brothers of deceased Yash Pal Anand they claimed the refund of the amount by moving requisite applications before the learned Trial Court. Learned Trial Court passed order dated 13.8.2001 directing the refund of the amount. A copy of this order is annexed with this petition as Annexure P-2. The operative portion of the order reads as under:
“From the bare perusal of the bail order and the proceedings before the Court of then learned MM Mr. V.K Jain it is clear that accused has deposited the money without prejudice to his rights and now the accused has been acquitted by the Court and therefore he is entitled to money deposited with the EEPC. No doubt the money belongs to the applicant and same has been deposited by him or his relatives on his behalf as is clear from the proceedings of the Court of Mr. V.K Jain. Applicant has already been acquitted by the Court and till date no appeal has been filed by the CBI as brought to the notice of this Court by the learned PP for the CBI and unless and until the order of acquittal is set aside by the Hon'ble High Court of Delhi, the legal position is that accused is acquitted. Money was deposited by the applicant or relatives of the applicant in compliance of the conditions of the bail order and money was deposited without prejudice to his rights and therefore accused is entitled to refund of money. However, this Court has no powers to award interest. If any interest has been earned by the EEPC then granting the interest is beyond the jurisdiction of this Court. This Court can return only that much amount as has been deposited with the EEPC. At the time when the bail order was passed it was not held by the Court that EEPC will return the amount with interest. However if any interest has accrued to the EEPC then applicant is at liberty to file civil suit or opt another remedy and accordingly I allow the application of the applicant in part and direct the second respondents i.e Engineering Export Promotion Counsil to return the sum of Rs. 15,24,079/- to the applicant Satish Anand. Copy of this order be given to the Counsel for the EEPC.”
3. In spite of aforesaid orders when the amount was not paid the said brothers of late Yash Pal Anand preferred a petition under Section 482 in this Court which was allowed vide order dated 5.10.2001 It may be noted that even after notice to the respondent No. 2 in those proceedings no body had appeared on behalf of the respondent No. 2. However, on the orders passed by this Court directing refund of the amount, amount was thereafter refunded and the said orders were complied with.
4. The petitioner wants same treatment in this petition. The submission is that though trial did not conclude in the case of Yash Pal Anand as he unfortunately died since it was a common trial on identical allegation and on the basis of same documents it would have been resulted into same consequence. In any case it is submitted that even when the trial has abated it has the effect of acquittal as is held by this Court in the case of Rajiv Gandhi Ekta Samiti v. Union of India, 2000 Crl.L.J 2002. The prayer, therefore, is made that the amount of Rs. 22 lacs deposited by the petitioner's husband should be refunded to her.
5. Learned Counsel for the respondent No. 2 has opposed this prayer by submitting that the orders which were passed in the case of brothers of late Yash Pal Anand were wrong orders and, therefore, benefit thereof should not be extended to the case of the petitioner. This submission is founded on the following pleas:
(A) Order dated 5.10.2001 passed by this Court was of ex parte order and respondent No. 2 was not represented therein.
(B) The said order records that money was deposited by the said petitioner “pursuant to the orders of this Court with the second respondent” which is factually incorrect inasmuch as there is no order of this Court directing the petitioner to deposit the amount as a condition of bail.
(C) It is also submitted that even if the trial in the case of Yash Pal Anand had been concluded and it would have resulted in conviction or acquittal, the trial Court could not have directed release of the amount.
6. Insofar as first contention is concerned viz. the order dated 5.10.2001 is an ex parte order, that would not make any difference. In any case learned Counsel for the respondent No. 2 has been heard in this matter in detail. The moot question is as to whether the amount in question was deposited by late Yash Pal Anand voluntarily or to avoid arrest. Letter dated 30.8.1994 by Yash Pal Anand to the respondent No. 2 becomes important in this context. At that stage CBI had already registered the case and the investigation was in progress. He was apprehending his arrest. [At that stage applications of Yash Pal Anand and his three brothers for anticipatory bail were pending. After the deposit of this amount the bail was also granted.] In this letter of 30.8.94 while making deposit of Rs. 11 lacs and assuring respondent No. 2 to make deposit of remaining amount, he also made following request:
“….in view of the above you are requested to also kindly inform immediately to the special investigation branch (CBI) not for take measure against us”
7. Obviously the amount was deposited to avoid arrest in the case.
8. Admittedly, the other three brothers also deposited the amount under the same circumstances. After their acquittal when they applied to the trial Court for refund of the amount deposited by them the trial Court directed the refund of the amount. While passing the order of refund the learned trial Court has categorically observed that money was deposited in compliance of the condition of bail order and without prejudice to the rights of the accused to be entitled to refund of the money. I fail to understand as to why same treatment be not meted out to the petitioner. Merely because Mr. Yash Pal Anand died during the pendency of the trial Court and the proceedings against him stood abated would not make any difference. It cannot be argued that his case would have resulted in conviction when cases filed against his brothers on identical allegations resulted in acquittal and appeals against those acquittal orders were also dismissed and but for the death of late Yash Pal Anand there was a joint trial against all the four accused persons.
9. This application is allowed. Respondent No. 2 is accordingly directed to refund amount in question to the petitioner within four weeks.
Application allowed.
Comments