3009 of 2003 shall be restored to its original position as stood before disposal on 3.12.2003.
3541 of 2001 before the High Court which was disposed of by order dated 5.10.2001 directing the respondent to refund the deposited amount within two weeks that as the trial against the husband had abated, she had number been able to move the application earlier that after the termination of the trial she had approached the officers of the respondent but despite the earlier direction by this Court and they being under legal obligation to refund the amount, tremendous apathy was shown and money was number refunded and that numberresponse was given to the legal numberice and, therefore, she was entitled to refund of the deposited sum.
4,60,000.00 issued by Canara Bank, New Delhi.
2 therein and observed thus Admittedly, the other three brothers also deposited the amount under the same circumstances.
If numberobjection is filed, the order passed on 3.12.2003 shall remain operative.
3541 of 2001 is as follows The question that is being raised before me, is whether the amount deposited by the accused persons pursuant to orders dated 12.10.1994 requiring the petitioner to deposit a sum of Rs.15,24,079/ with the second respondent by way of terms and companydition of the bail and the petitioner during trial having been acquitted of all charges on 22.6.2001 is entitled to receive back the money that is deposited pursuant to the orders of this Court with the second respondent as a companydition of bail.
Being grieved by the aforesaid order special leave petition Crl.
M. M No.
In view of the above you are requested to also kindly inform immediately to the special investigation branch CBI number to take measure against us.
As far as the husband of the Ist respondent is companycerned, he expired before the companyclusion of the trial and, therefore, the trial stood abated against him.
The reason ascribed by the trial companyrt for refund was that the said sum was deposited by the accused persons in companypliance of the companyditions of the bail order and it was clearly stated that the accused persons had deposited the money without prejudice to their rights and as they had been acquitted, they were entitled to refund of the money deposited with the EEPC.
M. M No.
7,40,000.00 under protest and acknowledge.
M. M No.
Learned companynsel for the CBI submits that the CBI does number have the money and that the same was deposited with the second respondent and, therefore it is only the second respondent that can be directed to return the money deposited.
Other three brothers had also deposited the sum with the said agency.
3541 of 2001 before the High Court which passed an order directing the present appellant to refund the amount.
M. M No.
27.8.94 of Rs.
Being of this view, the High Court further opined that once the proceeding stood abated against him, it cannot be argued that the case would have resulted in companyviction when cases against other brothers on identical allegations had resulted in acquittal and the appeals had been dismissed.
3009 of 2003 and Crl.
The High Court entertained the application preferred by the 1st respondent and passed the following order on 3.12.2003 In identical petition namely Crl.
The relevant part of the order dated 5.10.2001 passed in Crl.
3009 of 2003 with a prayer to companymand the respondent No.
540 of 2004 in Crl.
198928 dt.
3541/2001 an order dated 15.10.2001 was passed directing refund of the money deposited by the petitioner of that petition within a period of two weeks from the date of service of the respondent.
Thereafter, they claimed refund of the amount by filing requisite applications before the learned trial Judge who, by order dated 13.8.2001, directed refund of the amount.
Against the judgment of acquittal of the three brothers CBI preferred appeals which were dismissed on 27.5.2002 and numberappeal was preferred assailing the judgment of affirmation of acquittal.
2,80,000.00 issued by Canara Bank, New Delhi.
The amount deposited by the petitioner shall number be returned to the petitioner within a period of two weeks from today.
As the amount was number refunded despite the order passed by the trial companyrt, one of the brothers preferred Cri.
While passing the order of refund the learned trial companyrt has categorically observed that money was deposited in companypliance of the companydition of bail order and without prejudice to the rights of the accused to be entitled to refund of the money.
The Central Bureau of Investigation CBI registered six cases against him for offences punishable under Sections 420, 468/471 of the Indian Penal Code for short IPC in the year 1994.
As the factual matrix would demonstrate, late Yash Pal Anand had deposited a sum of Rs.22 lakhs with Engineering Export Promotion Council EEPC , a channelising industry under the Ministry of Commerce.
7,40,000.00 Bankers Cheque No.
M. M No.
In view of the above you are requested to also kindly inform immediately to the special investigation branch CBI number to take measure against us.
6349 of 2006 in Crl.
The allegations against the four accused persons are number required to be stated because the companytroversy pertains to a different realm altogether.
Thereafter, the 1st respondent filed Crl.
M. M No.
2 has been served the same order needs to be passed.
The Criminal Miscellaneous Main No.
After the aforesaid order an objection was filed and the High Court, while dealing with the companytroversy referred to the order passed by the trial companyrt on 13.8.2001 directing refund of amount in respect of other accused persons, and further referred to the order passed on 5.10.2001, which we have reproduced hereinabove, and thereafter, as is manifest from the order impugned, it reproduced a part of the letter dated 30.8.1994 by late Yash Pal Anand written to the respondent No.
3,60,000.00 issued by Canara Bank, New Delhi and 27 of Rs.
The facts which are essential to be exposited are that the husband of the Ist respondent, late Yash Pal Anand, was a merchant exporter of automotive companyponents and was carrying on business in the name and style of M s. Anand Craft Centre.
Bankers Cheque No.
Kindly accept this sum of Rs.
I fail to understand as to why same treatment be number meted out to the petitioner.
After their acquittal when they applied to the trial companyrt for refund of the amount deposited by them the trial companyrt directed the refund of the amount.
3009 of 2003 respectively.
Dipak Misra, J. In this appeal challenge is to the orders dated 1.6.2006 and 4.7.2006 passed by the High Court of Delhi in Criminal M.C. No.
M. No.
Identical cases of equal numbers were registered against his brothers, namely, Ashok, Satish and Subhash.
I have heard learned companynsel present for the parties the second respondent choosing number to be present, I direct that the amount deposited by the petitioner with the second respondent pursuant to orders of this Court and which was directed to be returned vide order dated 13.8.2001 shall be returned within a period of two weeks from date of service of the order.
2, the appellant herein, to refund the amount of Rs.22 lakhs on the ground that she was the sole legal heir that the allegations in all the cases were identical without any exception that the trial companyrt had allowed the applications for refund vide order dated 13.8.2001 in respect of other brothers that as the order passed by the trial companyrt was number companyplied with, one of the brothers had filed Crl.
Since in this case also respondent No.
41 of 2004 was filed before this Court, which was eventually companyverted to Criminal Appeal No.1085 of 2004.
The liberty given to the appellant to file a companynter shall be also applicable to the CBI.
27.8.94 of Rs.
The trial companytinued in different cases against all the four brothers and, eventually, Ashok, Satish and Subhash were acquitted in all the cases by the trial companyrt which extended them the benefit of doubt.
M. M No.
