Agriculturalist Refused Access To Bank Account Over Pendency Of Appeal Against His Acquittal Awarded 50K Cost From MP High Court

Justice G.S. Ahluwalia re-emphasized that an appeal against acquittal ought not to be considered as continuation of trial as the initial presumption of innocence gets reinforced by the order of acquittal-

Once a person is acquitted, then there is a presumption of innocence in his favour. The filing or pendency of an appeal against the acquittal cannot be regarded as a continuation of trial/prosecution and also cannot be treated to be pendency of judicial proceedings as the initial presumption of innocence gets re-enforced by the order of acquittal.

Counsel for the State is incorrect in submitting that the appeal against the acquittal is a continuation of trial. Once a person has been acquitted irrespective of the fact that whether any appeal against his acquittal is pending or not, he becomes entitled for the benefits which otherwise would have accrued to him without there being any finding of guilt against the petitioner specifically when the account No.4856 is not a subject matter of the criminal trial.

The Petitioner was accused of offences punishable under Sections 420, 467, 468, 34/120-B IPC. During the pendency of the proceedings, his bank account was frozen. However, the said order was later withdrawn since the respective bank account was not a subject matter in the proceedings against the Petitioner. Meanwhile, the Petitioner was acquitted in his trial. Despite the same, his account was not made accessible to him on the ground that the appeal against his acquittal was pending. Aggrieved, the Petitioner moved the Court.

Examining the submissions of parties and documents on record, the Court concurred with the arguments put forth by the Petitioner. The Court was surprised by the reasoning given by the State for continuing to deprive the Petitioner of his money. It observed that the State had arbitrarily and illegally withheld the amount-

It is really surprising that how the State Government is insisting that the said account should be kept in a frozen condition. The stand taken by the State is beyond imagination and reconciliation either on factual aspect or on legal aspect. Once SHO Police Station Basai, Tahsil and District- Datia (M.P.) had written to the Collector, Datia that account No.4856 is not a part of Crime No.20/2014 registered at Police Station Basai, Tahsil and District Datia and no document pertaining to account No.4856 has been made a part of the investigation as well as the charge- sheet, then the State had no authority whatsoever to keep the account of the petitioner in a frozen condition. Thus, it is clear that the State has illegally withheld the amount of the petitioner in a most arbitrary and malafide manner.

With the aforesaid observations, the Court directed the Bank to immediately release the amount so deposited in the bank account of the Petitioner. The Court also directed them to pay interest which must have accrued during the "illegal retention" of the said account. It further directed the State to pay Rs. 50,000 as cost to the Petitioner for depriving him of his hard-earned money.