STATE OF MANIPUR (CENTRAL BUREAU OF INVESTIGATION) Vs. KHUMALLABAM KULACHANDRA SINGH
LAWS(GAU)-1994-3-16
HIGH COURT OF GAUHATI
Decided on March 31,1994

State Of Manipur (Central Bureau Of Investigation) Appellant
VERSUS
KHUMALLABAM KULACHANDRA SINGH Respondents

JUDGEMENT

J. Sangma, J. - (1.)THIS appeal under Section 454 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, hereinafter the "Code", is from the order dated 5.1.94 passed by Shri H. Kamini Kumar Singh, Special Judge, Manipur East, in Criminal Misc. Case No. 36/93 of Special Trial Case No. 10 of 1985 of 1991 allowing the accused Respondent to withdraw the money which he deposited in SB Account No. 8849 of Manipur State Cooperative Bank at Imphal.
(2.)SO far as the accused Respondent is concerned, the prosecution case in short was this: By committing fraud on the Government the accused Respondent obtained a bank draft, bearing Code No. 0092 H 779006, for Rs. 1,00,000/ - and deposited that bank draft in his SB Account No. 8849 of Manipur State Cooperative Bank, Imphal, on 11.2.82. After the deposit he withdrew part of the amount; so the balance which remained is Rs. 33,000/ - only.
The I/O did not seize the pass book from the Respondent; but seized the relevant paper from the Bank. He submitted a charge sheet Under Sections 465/420/471 IPC against the Respondent. The case was registered as Special Trial Case No. 10/85/14/91 in the Court of Special Judge, Manipur, who thereupon framed charge under the said sections. During trial of the case, Respondent wanted to withdraw the remaining balance of Rs. 33,000/ - but the bank then told him that the Superintendent of Police had directed them not to allow the withdrawal unless he (Respondent) obtained permission from the trial court, Respondent then filed application before the trial court praying for permission to withdraw. Relying on a decision of certain High Court reported in (I) Crime at page 525 which was placed by defence counsel, the trial court passed the impugned order giving him the permission to withdraw. Hence this appeal by the prosecution.

(3.)MR . Munindra Kumar Singh, learned PP for CBI, contended that the order passed by the trial court is unfair to the prosecution and is plainly illegal inasmuch as, the prosecution's clear case was that it was part of the amount which the Respondent obtained by fraud and that in the event of conviction the Government would be entitled to get it Under Section 452 of the Code. Mr. Binoy Kumar Singh, learned Counsel for the Respondent supported the Impugned order by relying on the same decision i.e. the decision reported in (1) Crime at page 525. I have not read the decision; but even without reading I do not think that the facts of the present case would be the same or atleast similar to the facts in that decision.


Click here to view full judgement.
Copyright © Regent Computronics Pvt.Ltd.