The brief facts relevant for the purpose of the present appeal are that the appellant company is a Foreign Institutional Investor and was permitted by Securities and Exchange Board of India (for short ‘SEBI’ ) to buy and sell shares and securities in the Indian Stock Market. In so far as the first freeze order is concerned, vide orders dated 05.12.2008,14.05.2009,16.11.2009 and 17.08.2010, this Court allowed the 2 appellant company to sell the shares in its account, convert it into cash, and repatriate the funds so received with interest and without a bank guarantee, while the first freeze order was still operational. Subsequently, the learned Trial Court, after duly taking notice of the fact that this Court had allowed the appellant company to repatriate an amount of Rs.42.51 crores, vide order dated 02.11.2012, held that the appellant company was entitled to repatriate the amount of Rs. While perusing through the documents on record, it has come to our notice that the said Dharmesh Doshi, on the basis of whom the condition of bank guarantee was imposed, has now been discharged of the alleged offences by the Trial Court. In such a circumstance, wherein the appellant company and the accused Dharmesh Doshi are two separate entities, and the appellant company is in no way connected to the concerned Investigation, the operation of the freeze order against the appellant company, is not legally tenable. Since the appellant company is not connected to the alleged crime, and has not found mention in the FIR or the chargesheet, the freeze order against the appellant company’s properties is redundant qua the investigation, since the appellant company itself is not necessary for the conclusion of the investigation.
[KRISHNA MURARI]……………………..,J. [SANJAY KUMAR] NEW DELHI; 09 MAY, 2023 7
Case Title: M/S. JERMYN CAPITAL LLC DUBAI Vs. CENTRAL BUREAU OF INVESTIGATION (2023 INSC 509)
Case Number: Crl.A. No.-001434-001434 / 2023
