Mumbai: The special court has allowed former CEO of Karnala bank, Hemant Sutane, to dispose of his ancestral property, as it is not connected to the offence. The court said dealing with the property owned by the applicant which is not connected with the crime, is his civil right.
Sutane is presently lodged in prison in connection with the alleged Rs512.54-crore Karnala Nagari Sahakari Bank scam, in which former Panvel MLA Vivekanand Shankar Patil was also arrested.
Ex-Karnala Bank CEO Wants Wife to Handle Property Sale via POA
Sutane has approached the special MP and MLA court, seeking permission to execute Power of Attorney before Sub-Registrar in respect of power of attorney in favour of his wife to deal with their ancestral property. It is contended that Sutane has ancestral property and due to economic crunch, he wants to sell it out. As he is in jail, he wants to execute Power of Attorney in favour of his wife Maya Hemant Sutane, so that the transaction can be completed.
The plea was opposed by the public prosecutor Ramesh Siroya who contended that considering the nature of the offence, the liability to pay depositors may fasten on the applicant/accused and for that purpose, his properties may be needed in future and therefore, no permission be granted to execute the Power of Attorney or to effect the sale deed.
After hearing the plea, the special judge Satyanarayan R. Navander, noted, “It is seen that the property which the applicant intends to sell out, has not been seized during investigation either by the police or by Enforcement Directorate. None of the Investigating Agencies have made any reference to the property of the applicant either to be attached or sold.”
Allowing his plea the court said, “Dealing with the property owned by the applicant which is not connected with the crime, is his civil right. No restrictions can be imposed by the Court on the independent civil right of the applicant/accused, unless there is some reason to do so. In the present case, the applicant is entitled to deal with his properties independently.”
With over 27 properties already attached in the scam case, the court found it unlikely that the ancestral property would be needed to repay depositors.
