1 2025:CGHC:55343 NAFR HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH, BILASPUR CRMP No. 1953 of 2024 Vinayak Jayant Kulkarni S/o. Jayant Kulkarni Aged About 65 Years (Aadhar No. 8625 4428 9937), Director Of K And M Gold Medallion Company, R/o. A/8, Asian Building, Manmala Tank Road, Near Starcity Cinema, Matunga West, Mumbai (Maharashtra) Pin - 400016. ... Petitioner versus 1 - State Of Chhattisgarh Through The State Cyber Police Station, Nava Raipur (Wrongly Mentioned As Nava), District - Raipur (C.G.) 2 - Dr. Sanjiv Purkayastha S/o. Late Rishikesh Purkayastha Aged About 56 Years R/o. Quarter No. 9a, Jindalgarh, Jindal Steel And Power Limited, Raigarh, District - Raigarh (C.G.) ---- Respondents ___________________________________________________________ For Petitioner : Mr. Hari Agrawal, Advocate For State/Respondent No.1 : Mr. Ajit Singh, Govt. Advocate For Respondent No.2 : Mr. Dharmesh Shrivastava, Advocate ___________________________________________________________ Hon'ble Shri Justice Arvind Kumar Verma Judgment On Board 13/11/2025 2 1. With the consent of counsel for the parties, the matter is heard finally. 2. The Petitioner has filed the instant petition under Section 528 of the BNSS, 2023 by challenging the impugned order dated 14.06.2024 (Annexure P-1) passed in Criminal Revision No.127/2024 passed by the First Additional Sessions Judge, Raipur, District Raipur (C.G.), whereby an order prejudicial to the interest of the petitioner has been passed by the learned court below without giving any opportunity of hearing to the petitioner and that too after reaching to a perverse finding contrary to the records of the case, thereby allowing the application filed by the Complainant/R-3 herein for grant of interim custody of the amount of Rs.47 lakhs belonging to the petitioner and which were lying in his Bank account. 3. Briefly stated facts of the case leading to the disposal of this petition are that the complainant was defrauded in an online trading scam in 2021, where fraudsters asked him to deposit “holding charges” into certain bank accounts. During investigation, police found that part of the fraudulent money had passed through several intermediary accounts and ultimately reached B.D. Bangles & Jewellers, which had purchased bullion from the petitioner’s firm, K&M Gold Medallion Pvt. Ltd. 3 Although the police found the petitioner to be a genuine businessman and made him a prosecution witness, his Kotak Mahindra Bank account containing Rs. 47 lakhs was frozen on 04.02.2022. 4. Despite no material showing his involvement, the trial Court rejected his de-freezing application, and the Revisional Court dismissed his revision on technical grounds. Meanwhile, orders granting interim custody of amounts from all frozen accounts, including the petitioner’s, were passed without giving him notice or hearing. The petitioner has now approached this Court seeking de-freezing of his account and correction of the miscarriage of justice. 5. Learned counsel for the petitioner would submit that the Petitioner is the lawful and bona fide owner of the amount lying in the frozen bank account, the same being genuine proceeds arising out of legitimate bullion transactions, duly supported by invoices, bank entries, and statutory compliance. It is argued that investigation material itself demonstrates that the amount was first deposited by the Petitioner in the account of Kreativecrew and thereafter transferred to Awlencan Enterprises, reflecting a clear chain of lawful commercial dealings. It is further submitted that the learned Revisional Court passed the impugned order without 4 considering the pendency of another connected revision, owing to concealment of material facts by the Respondents. This has resulted in serious procedural irregularity and miscarriage of justice, vitiating the entire proceedings. Counsel submits that the settled principle of law mandates that interim custody of seized property must go to the person who prima facie appears to be the rightful owner, and the same principle equally applies in matters of freezing and de-freezing of bank accounts. The Court’s machinery cannot be permitted to operate as an instrument of oppression, particularly when the transactions in question are fully explained and are in no manner connected with any alleged offence. It is therefore submitted that the impugned order dated 14.06.2024 (Annexure P-1) deserves to be quashed. 6. On the other hand, learned counsel for the respective respondents oppose the submissions made by learned counsel for the petitioner and would submit that the petitioner has not established any lawful ownership of the frozen amount. The invoices and banking entries relied upon are yet to be verified and, at this stage, the pattern of transactions—moving through Kreativecrew and Awlencan Enterprises—appears suspicious and indicative of possible layering rather than genuine commercial activity. It is further submitted that the impugned order suffers from no procedural irregularity. The alleged pendency of another revision 5 does not vitiate the proceedings, nor is there any material showing concealment by the respondents. Counsel contends that de- freezing cannot be sought as a matter of right when the funds themselves are under investigation as potential proceeds of crime. Freezing is a preventive measure meant to preserve evidence, and the petitioner cannot demand release of the amount on the basis of unverified claims. The impugned order dated 14.06.2024 is reasoned and calls for no interference. 7. I have heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the record with utmost circumspection. 8. Having considered the submissions advanced and upon perusal of the record, this Court is of the considered view that the impugned order dated 14.06.2024 passed by the learned First Additional Sessions Judge, Raipur, suffers from serious procedural infirmity inasmuch as the Petitioner—whose rights were directly affected— was not afforded any opportunity of hearing before the trial Court as well as Revisional Court proceeded to grant interim custody of the amount of Rs. 47,00,000/-. The denial of audi alteram partem has resulted in grave prejudice to the Petitioner and vitiates the very foundation of the impugned order. Consequently, the order dated 14.06.2024 cannot be sustained and is hereby set aside. The matter is remitted back to the learned First Additional Sessions 6 Judge, Raipur, who shall, after providing due notice and a fair opportunity of hearing to the Petitioner as well as all concerned parties, pass a fresh, reasoned order strictly in accordance with law, uninfluenced by any observations made herein. Sd/- (Arvind Kumar Verma) Judge Vasant