(Common Prayer: Criminal Revision Petitions filed under Section 438 r/w 442 of BNSS, 2023, praying to set aside the order passed in Crl.M.P.Nos.1824 and 1651 of 2025 on the file of learned Principal District and Sessions Judge, Principal District and Sessions Court, Kancheepuram dated 10.11.2025.)

Common Order:

1. These Criminal Revision Petitions have been filed to set aside the order passed in Crl.M.P.Nos.1824 and 1651 of 2025 dated 10.11.2025 by the learned Principal District and Sessions Judge, Kancheepuram.

2. The petitioner’s husband, G.Prakash, Sanitary Officer, Health Section, Kancheepuram City Municipal Corporation, Kancheepuram is an accused in Crime No.6 of 2025 for offence under Section 7(a) of the Prevention of Corruption Act. It is a trap case. Pursuant to the trap, house search conducted on 23.04.2025 and 24.04.2025, following the house search, the locker jointly operated by the petitioner and her husband opened and inventory taken on 05.06.2025. During the course of investigation, the respondent sent a letter to the City Union Bank, Avadi Branch to freeze the joint locker and Bank Account No.500101012711727 of petitioner and her husband. Further directed the bank authorities not to permit the petitioner to operate the bank locker, in which, gold jewels and cash found, against which, the petitioner filed petitions before the trial Court in Crl.M.P.No.1824 of 2025 seeking to de-freeze the joint Account No.500101012711727 and Crl.M.P.No.1651 of 2025 to return her gold jewels, i.e., 519.3 grams and cash of Rs.6,00,000/- found in the locker. By a common order dated 10.11.2025, the trial Court dismissed the petitions, against which, present revisions filed.

3. The contention of the learned counsel for petitioner in Crl.R.C.No.2870 of 2025 is that the petitioner’s husband G.Prakash earlier owned a property measuring 1134 sq. ft., situated at Mahalakshmi Nagar with CMDA approval. The petitioner’s husband executed a registered Power of Attorney favouring S.Ganesh by Document No.7076/2025 in SRO, Kundrathur on 19.04.2025, to sell the property. The Power of Attorney, S.Ganesh agreed to purchase the property for a consideration of Rs.32,00,000/- and he was permitted to deal with the property as he likes. In connection with this transaction, the petitioner’s husband executed a cash receipt with the power agent and received a sum of Rs.19,00,000/-, through bank transfer by way of RTGS on 17.04.2025.

4. The learned counsel submitted that there must be a reasonable suspicion of involvement of the bank account with the commission of any crime or offence to freeze or to issue prohibitory order in operation of bank account. In this case, without any reasonable suspicion and materials, withholding the account of the petitioner and her husband is unsustainable in law. Due to the said restrictions, petitioner is facing difficulties, as she is unable to operate the account or have access to her funds. Prior to freezing the bank account, there was no communication informing the petitioner. Further, even after the freezing of the account she was not informed. Only when the petitioner attempted to operate the account, she was informed that the account was under freeze at the instance of the respondent. The petitioner approached the respondent, who informed the petitioner to file appropriate petition before the Court but to get appropriate orders. Thereafter, she filed the above petitions before the trial Court, but the trial Court finding that the Power of Attorney document executed does not contain any recital with regard to any amount and hence the petitioner’s contention that the sum of Rs.19,00,000/- received from S.Ganesh is a lawful transaction is not acceptable. Further the amount of Rs.19,00,000/- transferred on 17.04.2025 but the Power of Attorney document executed on 19.04.2025, i.e., on a later date. Hence, the Power of Attorney cannot be correlated to the transfer of Rs.19,00,000/-. This contention might not be proper, since enquiry conducted with the said Ganesh to confirm the transfer of the said amount. As regards the cash of Rs.6,00,000/-, kept in the locker, is the money saved over a period for the immediate and urgent usage for her daughter’s contemplated marriage expenses. Further in support of the contention, the petitioner produced the bank statement, registered Power of Attorney document No.7076/2025 dated 19.04.2025, Encumbrance Certificate reflecting the Power of Attorney and the Receipt dated 19.04.2025 confirming the sale consideration of Rs.32,00,000/-.

5. The contention of the petitioner as regards Crl.R.C.No.2871 of 2025 is that pursuant to the case in Crime No.6 of 2025, the respondent conducted a house search on 23.04.2025 and 24.04.2025, following the house search, the locker connected to City Union Bank Account No.500101012711727, Avadi Branch, jointly operated by the petitioner and her husband was opened on 05.06.2025 at about 10.15 a.m. and inventory taken in presence of Revenue Inspector-E.Vinoth Kumar, Junior Revenue Inspector-M.Dinesh, petitioner Latha, petitioner’s husband-G.Prakash, City Union Bank, Avadi Branch Manager-K.Santhosh Kumar, Assistant Bank Manager-V.Priyadharshini, Jewel Appraiser-S.Perumal, Special Sub Inspector-E.Sudha and Inspector, V & AC V.Devanarayanan. During the inventory, cash of Rs.6,00,000/-, 19 items of gold jewellery/ornaments and 11 items of silver articles found and recorded.

6. He further submitted that the petitioner gave explanation for each of the gold jewels and silver articles. The details for purchase of gold and silver articles with purchaser details, and gifts made by her mother, mother-in-law to her daughter and to the petitioner and gifts given by the relatives during the puberty function of her daughter, starting from the year 1998 to 2021 given, which are much prior to the registration of the case. The details verified and found to be true. Hence, these gold jewels and silver articles required for her daughter’s marriage cannot be retained. But the trial Court observed, though the petitioner filed photographs to show jewels were gifted to her by her mother at the time of marriage and few items were purchased out of savings for her daughter and few items were received as gifts at the time of puberty function and one item was gifted to the petitioner by her mother-in-law, the photographs cannot be considered as adequate proof to show that the jewels belonged to the petitioner. Further the trial Court referred to the decision of the Hon’ble Apex Court in the case of Teesta Atul Setalvad vs. State of Gujarat reported in (2018) 2 SCC 372. The facts of that case are completely in variance to the petitioner’s case. Further, there is no suspicion or any inference leading to the case, found against the petitioner. Hence, the order of the trial Court is liable to be set aside.

7. The learned Government Advocate (Crl. Side) produced the copy of Inventory Mahazar taken on 05.06.2025, which is extracted hereunder:

                   “IMAGE”

                   “IMAGE”

                   “IMAGE”

                   “IMAGE”

                   “IMAGE”

                   “IMAGE”

                   “IMAGE”

8. Further, the learned Government Advocate filed his counter on 19.01.2026 followed by a status report dated 29.01.2026, which is extracted hereunder:

                   “1. It is humbly submitted that, I, V.Devanarayanan, presently working as Inspector of Police, Vigilance & Anti-Corruption, Kanchipuram Detachment and the present Investigation Officer of the case in Kanchipuram V&AC Cr.No.6/AC/2025/KM, u/s. 7(a) of the Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988 (Amendment Act, 2018), dated:22.04.2025 and as such I am fully acquainted with the facts and circumstances of this case and is therefore filing this Status Report before this Hon'ble High Court of Madras.

                   2. It is humbly submitted that, this is a case of trap registered by the TLO/Inspector Tmt.R.Geetha, V&AC, Kanchipuram against the accused Tr.G.Prakash, Sanitary Officer, Health Section, Kanchipuram City Municipal Corporation, Kanchipuram District for the allegation of demand of bribe amount of Rs.5,000/- on 21.04.2025 at about 17.45 hrs. in his office from the complainant Tr.K.Saravanan, S/o. Kuppusamy No.37/109, Araperunjchelvi Street, Kanchipuram for processing to issue the Trade License for the complainant water purify company situated at No.2, Ranuvaveerar Salai, Sevilimedu, Kanchipuram.

                   3. It is humbly submitted that, during the trap proceedings on 23.04.2025, the accused Tr.G.Prakash had reiterated his earlier demand amount of Rs.5,000/- from the complainant Tr.K.Saravanan and received the same near the terrace staircase in his office at Kanchipuram City Municipal Corporation. Hence, the accused Tr.G.Prakash, Sanitary Officer was arrested and remanded by the TLO/Inspector Tmt.R.Geetha for the demand and acceptance of illegal gratification for processing to issue the Trade License of the complainant's Water Purifying Company.

                   4. It is humbly submitted that, as per the DVAC Memo vide No. RC 115/2025/MAWS/KM, Dated: 02.05.2025, the TLO/Inspector Tmt.R.Geetha handed over the above case to me (Inspector Tr.V.Devanarayanan, V&AC, Kanchipuram) on 19.05.2025 for investigation and I have been authorized to inspect the Banker's Book & Lockers under section 18 of the Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988 as per proceeding of the Superintendent of Police, North Range, DVAC, Chennai vide No. RC 115/2025/MAWS/KM, Dated:28.05.2025.

                   5. It is humbly submitted that, during the investigation, the locker search warrant dated:04.06.2025 was obtained from the Hon'ble Court of Chief Judicial Magistrate Cum Special Judge, Kanchipuram and a locker search was conducted on 05.06.2025 between 10.15 hrs. and 15.30 hrs. joint locker No.1/11, Key No.7 (Godreg-6080066) stands in the name of accused Tr.G.Prakash and his wife/Petitioner Tmt.P.Latha at City Union Bank, Avadi Branch, Chennai-54 in the presence of two official witnesses, Bank Manager Tr.K.Santhoshkumar, Assistant Branch Manager Tmt.V.Priyadharshini, along with the accused and his wife/Petitioner Tmt.P.Latha.

                   6. It is humbly submitted that, during the locker search, an amount of Rs.6,00,000/- (Rs.500/- x 1200), old Gold Ornaments totally 520.20 Grams (65.025 Sovereigns) & Silver articles totally 2.379 Kg were found in the above said locker. Further submitted that the joint S/B. account vide A/c. No.500101012711727 stands in the name of accused and his wife (Petitioner), found the balance amount of Rs.20,98,454/- in the said account. In this regard, the accused Tr.G.Prakash and his wife/Petitioner Tmt.P.Latha were not able to account for the amount of Rs.6,00,000/- found in the locker and the same was seized under Inventory Mahazar for investigation purpose.

                   7. It is humbly submitted that, the above Gold Ornaments & Silver articles were restored in the above said locker and the same was duly sealed with another lock and 3 Keys of new lock (SYERAA-6307) & locker Key (No.7 (Godrej 6080066) were seized under Inventory Mahazar in the presence of two official witnesses, Branch Manager Assistant Branch Manager accused Tr.G.Prakash and his wife/Petitioner Tmt.P.Latha, Further a request letter was given to the Branch Manager, City Union Bank, Avadi Branch to freeze the above said joint locker and linked S/B. account, which found huge amount, jointly stands in the name of the accused Tr.G.Prakash and his wife/Petitioner Tmt.P.Latha until further orders.

                   8. It is humbly submitted that, after completion of locker search, the un-accounted amount of Rs.6,00,000/-, Locker Key (No.7 (Godrej 6080066) and 3 Keys of new lock (SYERAA-6307) were seized under Inventory Mahazar and the same were submitted before the Hon'ble Court of Principal District and Sessions Judge, Kanchipuram on 06.06.2025 through Form-91 and assigned as P.I.No.34/2025, Dt.06.06.2025.

                   9. It is humbly submitted that, during the investigation, it is ascertained that, the accused wife/Petitioner Tmt.P.Latha stated that, 32 Sovereigns of Gold Ornaments & Silver articles 2.379 Kg were gifted by her mother and 7 Sovereigns of Gold Ornaments were gifted by her mother-in-law at that time of her marriage. Further, she stated that, 15 Sovereigns of the Gold Ornaments were purchased at various periods for her daughter's marriage and also 13 Sovereigns of the Gold Ornaments were gifted by their relatives at that time of her daughters puberty function and hence they have no receipt for the above. From the evidence of witness Tr.S.Perumal, Appraiser, City Union Bank, Avadi Branch, Chennai, it is ascertained that the above Gold jewels and Silver articles are old ornaments and from the evidence of Branch Manager Tr.K.Santhoshkumar, it came to know that, the above locker was previously operated before on 29.09.2023 by the accused and his wife/Petitioner Tmt.P.Latha. Hence the version of the accused and his wife/Petitioner Tmt.P.Latha is acceptable one.

                   10. It is humbly submitted that, further the accused and his wife/Petitioner Tmt.P.Latha stated that, during the year 2021 they obtained a loan amount of Rs. 10,00,000/- and made expenses to the tune of amount of Rs.5,00,000/- for the construction of their house and remaining of Rs.5,00,000/- was withdrawn from the bank loan A/c.501312030022645 on 27.01.2022 and Rs.1,00,000/- from their savings (Total amount of Rs.6,00,000/-) was kept in the above locker for the purpose to meet out for expenses of their daughters marriage.

                   11. It is humbly submitted that, during the investigation it came to know that, in respect of the seizure of Rs.6,00,000/- amount from the locker the version of the accused is not acceptable one. The accused and his wife/Petitioner availed the loan from the City Union Bank, Avadi Branch and paying the interest amount of Rs.21,855/- for every month from the month of March-2022. The accused received the loan amount of Rs.10,00,000/- from the bank after spending the amount of Rs.5,00,000/- for building construction work and remaining amount of Rs.5,00,000/- along with savings amount of Rs.1,00,000/- (total Rs.6,00,000/-) he has no necessity to keep the amount of Rs.6,00,000/- in the Safety locker from 2022 to 2025 and paying monthly interest amount of Rs.21,855/- per month for the above said amount. Hence, the reason stated by the accused is not legally sustainable one and recommended for Departmental action against the accused Tr.G.Prakash.

                   12. It is humbly submitted that, during the investigation, the accused and his wife/Petitioner Tmt.P.Latha stated that, the accused Tr.G.Prakash purchased the property in his name at vacant house site plot No.2, Kannampalaiyam Village in S.No.307/81A, to an extent of 1134 Sq.ft at Mahalakshmi Nagar, Poonamallee Taluk, Thiruvallur Distrist for the consideration amount of Rs.20,41,200/- and the same was registered at Kundrathur Sub-Registry vide Doc. No.9635/2024, dated:10.06.2024. After that, the accused Tr.G.Prakash made a un-registered document (gzg;gw;W urPJ) dated: 19.04.2025 between him and witness Tr.S.Ganesh, S/o.Sambathkumar, Door No.20, 10th Street, Kamaraj Nagar, Avadi, Chennai-71 for receiving the amount of Rs.32,00,000/- for the sale of above property and received the amount of Rs.19,00,000/- by their bank A/c. No.500101012711727 at City Union Bank Avadi Branch, Avadi, Chennai-54 through RTGS on 17.04.2025 and remaining amount of Rs.13,00,000/- received by Cash. Subsequently, the accused Tr.G.Prakash gave General Power of Attorney to Tr.S.Ganesh and the same was registered at Kundrathur Sub Registry as General Power Document vide Doc. No. 7076/2025, dated: 19.04.2025,

                   13. It is humbly submitted that, from the evidence of witness TrThanigainvel, Registered Stamp Vendor (Reg. No.5930/3/2008-2, dt.19.12.2008) I.C.F.Colony, Ambathur. Chennai-53 and also from the evidence of District Registrar, Chennai (South), it was ascertained that, the Tamil Nadu (India - Non Judicial) Stamp Paper of Rs.100/- vide No.DF-716905, was sold out to one Tr.S.Ganesh, Chennai-71 on 19.04.2025. Hence, from the above evidence, the investigation reveals that, the A.O. Tr.Prakash received the amount of Rs.32,00,000/- from one Tr.S.Ganesh and registered the above property through General Power of Attorney to him and the same was registered at Kundrathur Sub-Registrar office vide Doc. No. 7076/2025, dated: 19.04.2025. Hence, the version of the accused is acceptable one.

                   14. It is humbly submitted that, from the evidence of the Commissioner Kanchipuram City Municipal Corporation, it came to know that, the accused failed to intimate to his head of Department and not obtained permission for the purchase of the above vacant house site property at Mahalakshmi Nagar, Poonamallee Taluk, Thiruvallur Distrist for a consideration amount of Rs.20,41,200/- and the same was registered in his name at Kundrathur Sub-Registry vide Doc. No.9635/2024 dated:10.06.2024 and hence, Departmental action is recommended against the accused Tr.G.Prakash.

                   15. It is humbly submitted that, there is no feasibility to initiate Disproportionate asset case against the accused Tr.G.Prakash, Sanitary Officer, Kanchipuram City Municipal Corporation, Kanchipuram District in this regard and hence recommended for Departmental Action against the accused under Incidental Recommendation.

                   16. In such circumstance, it is most humbly prayed that this Hon'ble Court may be pleased to accept this Status Report filed and pass such order or orders as this Hon'ble Court may deems fit and proper in the interest of Justice.

                   Dated at Chennai, this the 29 day of January, 2026.”

9. From the counter and status report it is seen that the respondent has no serious objection on the claims made by the petitioner and confirms that Perumal, Appraiser of City Union Bank, Avadi Branch had ascertained that the above gold jewels and silver articles are old ornaments and Branch Manager, K.Santhosh Kumar informed that the locker was previously operated before 29.09.2023 by the petitioner and her husband, hence the petitioner’s version is acceptable one. Likewise from the statement of Thanigaivel, Stamp Vendor, I.C.F. Colony, Ambattur, Chennai and from the statement of District Registrar, Chennai (South), it was confirmed that the Power of Attorney, S.Ganesh purchased the stamp paper on 19.04.2025 and further the petitioner’s husband Prakash received the amount of Rs.32,00,000/- from the said Ganesh.

10. Considering the submissions made on either side and upon perusal of the material, this Court is inclined to de-freeze the account and return the jewels to the petitioner. Accordingly, the order passed in Crl.M.P.Nos.1854 and 1651 of 2025 dated 10.11.2025 by the learned Principal District and Sessions Judge, Kancheepuram are set aside.

11. The petitioner is directed to file an undertaking affidavit before the respondent police that the gold jewels and silver articles returned shall be produced as and when required by the investigating agency and also to execute a bond for a sum of Rs.1,00,000/- before the Investigating Officer. On receipt of the affidavit and bond, the respondent police shall give appropriate direction to the City Union Bank, Avadi Branch to remove the sealed lock, de-freeze the joint locker and Bank Account No.500101012711727 stands in the name of petitioner and her husband.

12. With regard to unaccounted amount of Rs.6,00,000/- (Rupees Six Lakhs only), which is now submitted before the Principal District and Sessions Judge, Kancheepuram on 06.06.2025 through Form-91 and assigned as P.I.No.34 of 2025, the respondent to file a petition/Memo before the concerned Court, collect the same, deposit in an interest earning Fixed Deposit Account and the Fixed Deposit receipt will be a case property in the departmental action contemplated.

13. With the above directions, the Criminal Revision Cases are allowed.