AI Structured Summary
Not yet generated for this judgment
Judgment
,,,,,,,,
i),"One property held in the name of Smt.
Saraswathi and Smt. Reshma situated at Site
No.1 Kaneshumari No.754/1, SLVLayout,
Basavanahalli Village, KasabaHobli,
Nelmangala measuring 3704.87 sft registered
during the year Nov, 2007 (Regd Deed
No.5649 dated
23.11.2007 sub registrar Nelamangala).","Smt. Saraswati&
Smt. Reshma","Rs. 4,80,000/-",,,,,
ii),"One property held in the name of Smt.
Saraswathi and Smt. Reshma situated at Site
No.4 Kaneshumari No.754/4, SLV Layout,
Basavanahalli Village, KasabaHobli,
Nlmangala measuring 3465 sft registered
during the year Nov, 2007 (Regd Deed
No.5651 dated 23.11.2007 sub registrar
Nelamangala).","Smt. Saraswati&
Smt. Reshma","Rs. 4,50,000/-",,,,,
iii),"Property held in the name of Smt. V.
Saraswathi, a Flat bearing No.1713, Ist Floor,
17th Wing, Measuring 1639 sft Situated on
Corporation No. 59, at Palace Road, Ward
No. 78, Vasanthanagar, Bangalore",Smt. Saraswati,"Rs. 70,00,000/-",,,,,
iv),"House situated at No.20, 18th Cross,
Malleswaram, Bangalore. (Registered vide
Sub registrar No.3861 dated 28.12.1973 (site
No.20) and sub registrar No.4266, dated
28.01.1974 (site No.20A). Sub- registrar,
Rajajinagar, Bangalore.","S.K.V.
Chalapathy (Mr.
S.V.Srinivas used
the money for
renovation of this
house0","Rs. 10,44,000/-
[Rs.44,000/-
(cost of land)+ Rs.
10,00,000/-
(cost of
construction]",,,,,
SI.
No",Details of accused,Sections invoked,,,,,,
1,Mr Katta Subramanya Naidu,"7, 13(1)(d) r/w 13(2) Prevention of
Corruption Act, 1988 (PC Act) and 465, 471 r/w
120(B) of Indian Penal Code(IPC) ;",,,,,,
2,Mr K.S.Jagadish @ Katta Jagadish Naidu,"8, PC Act, 1988 and
420, 465,468,120(B) of IPC |",,,,,,
3,Mr S.V.Srinivas,"12 PC Act, 1988, 420, 465, 468,506 r/w 120(B) of
IPC,",,,,,,
4,"Mr Jagaiah ( absconding at the time of filing
chargesheet)","420, 465, 468 r/w 120(B) IPC",,,,,,
5,"Mr Venkaiah (absconding at the time of filing
chargesheet)","420, 465,468 r/w 120(B) of IPC",,,,,,
6,Mr Basavapoornaiah,"12 PC Act, 1988& 120(B) of IPC",,,,,,
7,Mr T.P.Muninarayanappa,"13(1)(d) r/w 13(2) P.C. Act, 1988 &
120(B) of IPC",,,,,,
8,Mr B.K.Manju.,"420 ,506 r/w 120(B) of IPC",,,,,,
9,Mr M.Gopi,"420, 506 r/w 120(B) of IPC",,,,,,
Naidu and M. Gopi respectively challenged FIR 57/2010resulting in charge sheet numbered as SPL CC 135/2011 before the Honâ€ble High Court of,,,,,,,,
Karnataka in Criminal RP 432/2013 and CrIP 2313/2016 respectively. The Honâ€ble High Court of Karnataka by a common order dt. 03.11.2016,,,,,,,,
allowed Criminal RP 432/2013 and CrlP 2313/2016 and quashed FIR 57/2010 resulting in charge sheet numbered as SPL CC 135/2011, as against Mr.",,,,,,,,
Katta Subramnaya Naidu and M. Gopi. The prosecution has challenged the order of the Honâ€ble Court of Karnataka in Criminal RP 432/2013 and,,,,,,,,
CrlP 2313/2016 before the Honâ€ble Supreme Court in SLP (Crl) 1192-1193/2017. Notice is ordered in the said matters.,,,,,,,,
The appellant in Appeal No. 447/2013 is Smt. Reshma Srinivas.,,,,,,,,
She is the wife of SV Srinivas and his mother are not the accused in the schedule offence. Mother is also not an accused in the section 45 compliant,,,,,,,,
filed by the respondent herein numbered as SPL CC 124/2014 and is arrayed as accused No. 22. The said SPL CC 124/2014 was instituted on,,,,,,,,
24.03.2014 after the impugned order dt. 21.02.2013 passed by the Adjudicating Authority in OC 158/2012.,,,,,,,,
The appellant in appeal No. 448/2013 and 456/2013 is Smt V. Sarawathi who is the wife of Mr. SKV Chalapathy. She is not accused in the,,,,,,,,
schedule offence nor in the section 45 compliant filed by the Respondent herein numbered as SPL CC 124/2014.,,,,,,,,
The Appellant in appeal No. 449/2013 is Mr SKV Chalapathy is not accused either in the schedule offence nor in the section 45 compliant filed by,,,,,,,,
the Respondent herein numbered as SPL CC 124/2014. Both appeals filed by the parents of S.V. Srinivas have been allowed.,,,,,,,,
In the present appeals, it is merely to be examined as to whether the provisional attachment order and confirmation order passee thereof is sustainable",,,,,,,,
as per facts and law or not. As per complaint u/s 45 is concerned, the writ petition is pending and proceedings have been stayed.",,,,,,,,
The Joint Director of Enforcement Directorate based on the charge-sheet dated 25.09.2012 filed by the Karnataka Lokayuktha Police Wing in Spl,,,,,,,,
CC 135/20111 passed a provisional order of attachment bearing No. ECIR/07/BZO/2011 â€" AD â€" MNT /1477. Under the said provisional order of,,,,,,,,
attachment, the Joint Director of Enforcement Directorate herein had provisionally attached the properties of the Appellant herein amongst others.",,,,,,,,
In view of provisional order of attachment, the Joint Director of Enforcement Directorate, being the Respondent filed a complaint bearing No.",,,,,,,,
158/2012 under Section 5(5) of the Prevention of Money Laundering Act (“Actâ€), before the Adjudicating Authority under the Act. The said",,,,,,,,
authority has issued direction to issue notice to all defendants as they have reason to believe that an offence was committed under section 3 of the Act,,,,,,,,
by the defendants. These are the only reason to believe recorded by the Adjudicating Authority.,,,,,,,,
After hearing the parties, the order was reserved on 3.1.2013. The Adjudicating Authority, on 21.02.2013 confirmed the provisional order of",,,,,,,,
attachment in respect of many properties, including two properties which are the subject matter of above-mentioned appeal.",,,,,,,,
The allegation made against S.V. Srinivas is that he himself has declared in the Income Tax returns by Mr. S.V. Srinivas for the period 2007-08,,,,,,,,
was only Rs. 5,17,880/- whereas the two properties (Declared value of Rs. 9,30,000/-) and how can he purchased these two properties above. It is",,,,,,,,
also mentioned that the period 2010-11 was only Rs. 43,18,104/- whereas the property (Stated value of Rs. 70,00,000/-) as mentioned were purchased",,,,,,,,
during the same period in the name of his mother, the details of which are mentioned as iii) of para 2 of my earlier part of order. As far as property",,,,,,,,
no. iii) is concerned, the same is subject matter of appeal no. 448/2013 filed by his mother and the said appeal is allowed as it was held that not a",,,,,,,,
single paisa was paid by him in purchasing the said property. The entire payment was made by the father of Srinivas and husband of Sarawati by was,,,,,,,,
cheques. It was admitted by the respondent that except remaining payment of about twenty lacs unpaid at the time of passing the attachment order,",,,,,,,,
however, the same was also paid. After filing the appeal cogent evidence in this regard was furnished.",,,,,,,,
Before passing the order of provisional attachment, the respondent herein had not asked the Appellants Saraswathi and Reshma Srinivas for",,,,,,,,
questioning as to how the above said properties were purchased; nor did the respondent issued any notice to Defendant No. 10 and 12 seeking the,,,,,,,,
source of income for purchase of the above said properties. No notice was served. No opportunity was given to them to place their stand. At the time,,,,,,,,
of confirmation order, the prosecution complaint was not pending. The complaint against S.V. Srinivas, his wife Reshma and others was filed after",,,,,,,,
about a year after passing the impugned order. The said proceedings have also been stayed by the High Court of Karnataka upon challenge made by,,,,,,,,
few parties. No reason to believe under section 5(1) was served upon them.,,,,,,,,
The provisional order of attachment in respect of the above properties is passed mainly on the allegations that funds for the purchase of the said,,,,,,,,
properties was provided by S.V. Srinivas. The allegations are mentioned in Para 19.2, 19.3 & 19.4 of the complaint. The same are reproduced",,,,,,,,
hereunder:-,,,,,,,,
19.2 In his second statement dated 09.07.2012 recorded under Section 50 of PMLA, Mr. S.V. Srinivas has admitted the following facts:",,,,,,,,
“ (b) Property held in the name of his mother Smt. V. Saraswathi, a Flat bearing No. 1713, 1st Floor, 17th Wing, Measuring 1639 sft.",,,,,,,,
Situated on Corporation No. 59, at Palace Road, Ward No. 78, Vasanthanagar Bangalore at Embassy Habitat (Property mentioned at Sl.",,,,,,,,
No. 32 of Para 2 above) was purchased during the year 19.08.2010 for a consideration of Rs. 20,48,750/- (Value of the site comprising of",,,,,,,,
843.72 sft only). The sale deed for the flat was only for undivided share of land and there is a separate agreement for construction of flat,",,,,,,,,
which is not with them. Approximately the total value of construction cost of flat taken by the builder is Rs. 50 lakhs. The total cost of the,,,,,,,,
flat is Rs. 70 lakhs including the cost of undivided share of land.,,,,,,,,
19.3 The Income from all source as declared in the income tax returns for the period 2007-08 was only Rs. 5,17,880/- whereas the two",,,,,,,,
properties (Declared value of Rs. 9,30,000/-) as mentioned at Sl.No. 30 and 31 of Para 2 above and as discussed above were purchased",,,,,,,,
during the same period. It is also observed that the income from all source as declared in the Income tax returns for the period 2010-11 was,,,,,,,,
only Rs. 43, 18,104/- whereas the property (Stated value of Rs. 70,00,000/-) as mentioned at Sl. No. 32 of Para 2 above and as discussed",,,,,,,,
above were purchased during the same period. The property mentioned at Sl. NO. 30 of Para-2 above has already been admitted by Mr.,,,,,,,,
S.V. Srinivas in his statement dated 12.06.2012 having renovated the house out of the money received from ITASCA account.,,,,,,,,
19.4 Mr. S.V. Srinivas was the person involved in the entire conspiracy of defrauding the money as discussed in the chargesheet filed by,,,,,,,,
Lokayukta and also as discussed in above paras. Further, as discussed in the paras above, there were large number of withdrawal in cash",,,,,,,,
from the account of ITASKA as well as Indu Builders & Developers accounts. Further scrutiny of one bank account held at Axis Bank A/c,,,,,,,,
No.227010100090322 for the period from 08-07-2007 to 03-09-2011 of Mr. S.V. Srinivas revealed corresponding unexplained cash,,,,,,,,
deposit amounting to a sum of Rs.55 Lakhs approximately. Scrutiny of the said account also revealed he has received large number of,,,,,,,,
transfer from the account of M/s. Itasca as well as M/s. Indu builders to his account. Few illustrations are also given below. Mr. Venkaiah,,,,,,,,
and Mr. Jaggaiah, both in their statement dated 09.06.2012 have admitted and confirmed that all the accounts were being opened,",,,,,,,,
managed and operated by Mr. K.S. Jagadish and Mr. S.V. Srinivas. Thus, Mr. S.V. Srinivas has been one of the beneficiary of entire fraud",,,,,,,,
Sl.
No.",Description,"FY 2004-
05","FY 2005-
06","FY 2006-
07","FY 2007-
08","FY 2008-
09","FY 2009-
10",Total
1,"Share of Profit
from M/s.
Chalapathy&
Srinivas","3,45,993","7,48,206","13,32,44
7","15,73,565","27,72,921","7,04,738","74,77,870
2,"Remuneration
from M/s.
Chalapathy&
Srinivas","1,38,664","2,72,735","4,67,482","5,47,855","9,47,640","5,73,553","29,47,929
3,Other Income,,,,,,,0
4,Rental Income,"36,000","36,000","72,000","1,08,000","1,08,000",,"3,60,000
5,"Professional
Income",,,,"99,208","11,99,064","36,67,309","49,65,581
6,"Salary from
M/s ITASCA",,,,"20,00,000",,,"20,00,000
7,"Agricultural
Income","2,57,087","2,44,805","2,42,652","2,33,636","1,55,360","1,83,540","13,17,080
,Total,"7,77,744","13,01,746","21,14,581","45,62,264","51,82,985","51,29,140","1,90,68,460
,Net Agricultural income earned by the 1st Appellant from 1997-98 to 2003-04*,,,,,,,
,Total Income Earned by this Defendant,,,,,,,
,,,,,,,,
S. No.,Description,Direct (Rs),"Amounts
withdrawn
through bearer
cheques
(In the name of
Land lords)
(Rs.)","Amount
withdrawn through
bearer cheques (
in the name of non
existing land lords
and their legal
heirs (Rs.)",Amount (Rs),,,
1,"A/c INDU
BUILDERS","16,03,07,700/-","37,23,29,000/-","32,02,27000/-","85,2863,700/-",,,
2,"A/c ITASCA
MALLESHWARAM","5,77,00,000/-","33,87,18,000/-","30,90,33,178/-","70,54,51,178/-",,,
3,"A/c ITASCA
BASAVESHWA
RNAGAR","5,25,00,000/-","13,20,50,000/-","20,58,00,000/-","39,03,50,000/-",,,
Total,,"27,05,07,700/-","84,30,97,000/-","83,60,60,178/-","194,86,64,878/-",,,
Police Wing and an Interlocutory Application in terms of section 35 of PMLA read with Order 11 Rule 14 to the respondent to produce the bearer,,,,,,,,
cheques allegedly issued in the name of the Appellant. However neither the said applications are dealt with the impugned order nor any order in this,,,,,,,,
regard was passed.,,,,,,,,
The observation of at Para 132 of the impugned order passed by the Adjudicating Authority that the Appellant did not choose to mention about,,,,,,,,
agricultural income at the time of investigation or about the ownership of the agricultural land to an extent of 10 acres is contrary to the material on,,,,,,,,
record as the answers given by the Appellant when he was summoned for questioning by the Respondent on 12/06/2012 to question No. 10 and 12 at,,,,,,,,
page 193 of the appeal memo reads as follows:,,,,,,,,
“ Q. 10. What is your source of income?,,,,,,,,
Ans. I have income from profession, i.e. legal firm wherein I am the partner with my father’s legal firm. I have also agricultural income declared",,,,,,,,
to income tax authorities………,,,,,,,,
Q. 12. Furnish details of moveable and immovable properties held in your name and the name of your family members?,,,,,,,,
Ans. (i) One farm land situated at Honnasandra village, kasabahobli, held in my name measuring 10 acres bought during Nov, 1995 for a sum of Rs.",,,,,,,,
5,00,000/-………….â€",,,,,,,,
In fact the Appellant has also produced the sale deed pertaining to the agricultural land before the Respondent. It is evident that respondent had,,,,,,,,
prior knowledge of the Appellantâ€s agricultural income and ownership of agricultural land and in spite of the same the respondent has chosen to,,,,,,,,
ignore it and pass the provisional order attaching the above said properties. The Adjudicating Authority has passed the above said remark confirming,,,,,,,,
the provisional order which is perverse and contrary to the material available on record. None of said aspect has either discussed or dealt with the,,,,,,,,
impugned order.,,,,,,,,
Smt. Saraswathi and Smt. Reshma Srinivas were not issued any notice by the respondent nor was any statement recorded by the respondent,,,,,,,,
before passing the order of attaching the property owned by the Appellant. Thus, on the face or record, the provisional attachment order against",,,,,,,,
Saraswati and Reshma passed against the principles of natural justice and violates the rights of this appellant enshrined in Art. 14 and 21 of the,,,,,,,,
Constitution of India.,,,,,,,,
It is argued on behalf of the appellant that the said confirmation by the Adjudicating Authority is void as it does not satisfy the requirement of,,,,,,,,
section 8(3) as on 22/02/2013 and for the same, the properties of the appellant cannot be confiscated under section 8(5) of the Act. Counsel argued",,,,,,,,
that since Srinivas was acquitted from the schedule offence, the adjudicating authority ought not to have passed the order under the Amendment Act",,,,,,,,
once the order was reserved in the proceedings under the old Act.,,,,,,,,
Learned counsel for the appellant also argued the plain language of the Act, that for the confirmation to continue under the amended Act, it is sine-",,,,,,,,
quo-non that there should exist a proceeding under the Act relating to an offence under this Act, more specifically, a complaint under section 45 of the",,,,,,,,
Act should exist for an offence under section 3 punishable under section 4 of the Act.,,,,,,,,
After one year i.e. on 24.03.2014 the Respondent herein filed a complaint under section 45(1) of the Act before the Principal City Civil and,,,,,,,,
Session Judge and Special Court for Prevention of Money Laundering Act, Bangalore on 24.03.2014 in which S.V. Srinivas and his wife are arrayed",,,,,,,,
as a Accused. In the said complaint, the Respondent has prayed for confiscations of all the attached properties vide provisional attachment order No.",,,,,,,,
7/2012 dt: 25.09.2012 in terms of Section 8(5) of the Act among other things.,,,,,,,,
The Principal City Civil and Sessions Judge and Special Court for Prevention of Money Laundering Act, Bangalore by its order dt: 24.03.2014",,,,,,,,
registered the complaint filed by the Respondent as Spl CC 124/2014.,,,,,,,,
Complaint bearing No. 158/2012 dt: 05/10/2012 has been filed by the Respondent herein before the Adjudicating authority on the basis of FIR,,,,,,,,
57/2010 which resulted in chargesheet in SPL CC 135/2011 before the Prevention of Corruption Act Special Court Bangalore. The said FIR 57/2010,,,,,,,,
and the resultant chargesheet have held to be bad in law by the Honâ€ble High Court of Karnataka in Criminal Petition 5102/2015 vide its order dt:,,,,,,,,
10/03/2016. The Honâ€ble High Court has quashed the charge-sheet and FIR in SPL CC 135/2011 as against Defendant No. 9 in Complaint bearing,,,,,,,,
No. 158/2012 instituted by the Respondent herein.,,,,,,,,
The State has filed the appeal before the Honâ€ble Supreme. The said appeal is pending. I do not wish to express any opinion in relation to the,,,,,,,,
quashing of the said proceedings. Rather I am of the view if the said appeal against the S.A. Srinivas is allowed before the Supreme Court, he must",,,,,,,,
face the trial as per law. In the impugned order, the Adjudicating Authority has not dealt with all the plea raised by the appellants, the documents filed",,,,,,,,
by the appellants have not been discussed and considered in the impugned order.,,,,,,,,
The order in the matter after hearing both the parties were reserved on 3.1.2013. At that time, under section 8(3) (unamended provision), it was",,,,,,,,
mandated that the attachment shall continue during the pendency of the proceedings relating to any schedule offence before a court and become final,,,,,,,,
after the guilt of the person is proved in the trial court and under sub-section (5) of Section-8, but where on conclusion of trial for any schedule",,,,,,,,
offence the person is acquitted, the attachment of properties shall cease to have effect. Admittedly as the proceedings against him also were quashed",,,,,,,,
by the High Court at Karnataka. The appeal filed by the State is pending before the Honâ€ble Supreme Court.,,,,,,,,
It is not denied that when the order was reserved unamended provision of section 8(3) was applicable but the said provision was amended and,,,,,,,,
became operative w.e.f. 15.2.2013. The order was pronounced on 21.2.2013. It is not denied that the hearing was conducted when the unamended,,,,,,,,
provision of section 8(3) (a) of the Act. It is also matter of record, the matter was not re-heard after amendment and after pronouncement. The",,,,,,,,
prosecution complaint was filed after a period of one year from the date of passing the impugned order.,,,,,,,,
As mentioned earlier, the Adjudicating Authority has also extracted the language of the amended section 8(3) of the Act in the order confirmation,",,,,,,,,
which highlights the fact that the adjudicating authority was aware that it was confirming the provisional attachment as per section 8(3) of the Act as,,,,,,,,
amended by the Amending Act of 2012 which have come rinto force w.e.f. 15.2.2013. At the time of amendment, the order was already reserved, but",,,,,,,,
it was passed after amendment was incorporated.,,,,,,,,
Section 8(3) pursuant to the Amendment Act of 2012 reads as follows:-,,,,,,,,
“8(3) Where the Adjoining Authority decides under sub-section (2) that any property is involved in money-laundering, he shall, by an",,,,,,,,
order in writing, confirm the attachment of the property made under sub-section (1) of section 5 or retention of property or record seized or",,,,,,,,
frozen under section 17 or section 18 and record a finding to that effect, whereupon such attachment or retention or free zing of the seized",,,,,,,,
or frozen property or record shallâ€",,,,,,,,
(a) continue during the pendency of the proceedings relating to any offence under this Act before a court or under the corresponding law,,,,,,,,
of any other country, before the competent court of criminal jurisdiction outside India, as the case ma be; and",,,,,,,,
(b) become final after an order of confiscation is passed under sub-section (5) or sub-section (7) of section 8 or section 58B or sub-section,,,,,,,,
(2A) of section 60by the Adjudicating Authority.,,,,,,,,
It is a matter of fact that on the date of confirmation i.e. impugned order dt. 21.2.2013. There was no prosecution complaint filed. It was filed on,,,,,,,,
24.03.2014, the expression in the amended Act, Section 8(3)(a) stipulates that where the Adjudicating Authority confirm the attachment order, it was",,,,,,,,
record a finding to the effect that the party is involved in money laundering and the said attachment will continue during the proceedings relating to any,,,,,,,,
offence under this Act.,,,,,,,,
At the time of confirmation order, no proceedings under this Act was pending. It is also not the case of the respondent that some investigation was",,,,,,,,
on therefore the proceedings could be filed. The charge sheet was filed in the year 2011-12. It is true that no time limit is provided to file the,,,,,,,,
prosecution complaint under Section 45 of the Act. But merely readings Section 8(3)(a) amended, an inference can be drawn very easily that the",,,,,,,,
attachment shall continue during the proceedings relating to any offence under this Act. Under the unamended act the attachment comes to end once,,,,,,,,
the accused is acquitted in the schedule offence. I am of clear in mind that the said provision of section 8(3) (a) was incorporated on 15.02.2013 with,,,,,,,,
the intention that at the time of confirmation order of attachment, the prosecution complaint along with evidence collected after independent",,,,,,,,
investigation must be pending so that the Adjudicating Authority should consider the same before passing the confirmation order.,,,,,,,,
Thus, I am of view that prior to confirmation of the provisional attachment under section 8(3) of PMLA, a proceeding for the offence under",,,,,,,,
PMLA in terms of section 45 has to be initiated, failing which, no confirmation can be made and the confirmation may become non est in the eye of",,,,,,,,
law. The expression continue during proceedings to any offences indicates that the prosecution complaint must be pending, otherwise, there were no",,,,,,,,
proceedings left under this Act. There is also a logic behind it that once the confirmation is passed, nothing remains left under this Act after",,,,,,,,
continuation of attachment orders, except the prosecution complaint if filed by the respondent before the Special Court.",,,,,,,,
Even very recently the said provision of sub-section (3) of Section 8 has now again been amended by Act 13 of 2018 in the same lines as,,,,,,,,
observed in earlier paras wherein sub-section (3)(a) of section 8 after the words “continue during†the words “investigation for a period not,,,,,,,,
exceeding ninety days†has been inserted. So the intention of the insertion is that within 180 days at the time of passing the confirmation order, the",,,,,,,,
Adjudicating Authority shall also to go through the prosecution complaint and evidence conducted by the respondent and details mentioned therein.,,,,,,,,
From the above, prima facie I am of the view that the prosecution complaint must be pending (under section 45 of the PMLA Act) before the",,,,,,,,
Adjudicating Authority at the time of passing the confirmation order. However, I am refrain not to pass the final conclusion in this regard in view of",,,,,,,,
pendency of writ petition where the same issue has been challenged with the prayer of quashing the said proceedings before the Honâ€ble High Court,,,,,,,,
of Karnataka who already stayed the proceedings. It is appropriate if the Honâ€ble High Court may pass the order accordingly.,,,,,,,,
From the entire gamut of the above mentioned three appeals with regard to the two properties which were purchased by S.V. Srinivas for a total,,,,,,,,
sum of Rs.9,30,000/- which were given by him to his mother and wife. The allegation made against him is that he has declared in the Income tax",,,,,,,,
Return for the period 2007-08 was only Rs.5,17,888/-whereas the two properties, the declared value is Rs.9,30,000/-.",,,,,,,,
The appellant has furnished the details in order to show that he has the sufficient amount at the time of purchasing the above mentioned two,,,,,,,,
properties. Taking the face value of the allegation of the respondent without expressing anything, as alleged, he was only having Rs.5,17,888/-",,,,,,,,
whereas the value of two properties are Rs.9,30,000/-, in order to strike balance, the difference of the same i.e Rs. 4,12,112/- is directed to be",,,,,,,,
deposited by S.V. Srinivas with the respondent by way of Fixed Deposit Receipt for initial period of two years within four weeks and the same be,,,,,,,,
renewed by S.V. Srinivas until the final order is passed in the prosecution complaint in the name of respondent.,,,,,,,,
As far as the other allegation of the amount spent by him to purchase the property of Rs.7,00,000/- is concerned, the same is not correct as entire",,,,,,,,
payment was paid by his father, who is the husband of Saraswati ( one of the appellants) .",,,,,,,,
The appellant shall also file an Undertaking by way of affidavit that in case the appellant is finally held guilty in the prosecution complaint, he shall",,,,,,,,
deposit a sum of Rs.10.0 lac (ten lac only ) with the respondent as the said amount was spent by him for renovation of his fatherâ€s property as per,,,,,,,,
alleged allegation made in the prosecution complaint. Once the Fixed Deposit Receipt and Undertaking are filed by the appellant with the respondent,,,,,,,,
within the time granted, the above named two properties shall stand released.",,,,,,,,
The said directions are passed without prejudice and I may also clarify that in case the prosecution complaint is decided in favour of S.V. Srinivas,,,,,,,,
and his wife Reshma, the said amount shall be released to them by the respondent immediately.",,,,,,,,
All the above appeals and pending MPs/applications are disposed of.,,,,,,,,