Karnataka High Court
Siddanna S/O Tippanna vs The State Of Karnataka on 6 December, 2021
Author: H.P.Sandesh
Bench: H.P.Sandesh
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA
KALABURAGI BENCH
DATED THIS THE 6TH DAY OF DECEMBER 2021
BEFORE
THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE H.P.SANDESH
CRIMINAL REVISION PETITION No.200080/2021
BETWEEN:
SRI SIDDANNA
S/O TIPPANNA
AGED ABOUT 58 YEARS
OCC: JOINT DIRECTOR
DISTRICT INDUSTRIAL CENTRE
VIJAYPUR
R/O H.NO.81, RAMDEV NAGAR
NEAR RING ROAD
VIJAYAPUR - 586 101
...PETITIONER
(BY SRI S.S.MAMADAPUR, ADVOCATE)
AND:
THE STATE OF KARNATAKA
THROUGH POLICE INSPECTOR
ANTI CORRUPTION BUREAU, VIJAYPUR
REP. BY ITS SPECIAL PUBLIC PROSECUTOR
ADVOCATE GENERAL'S OFFICE
HIGH COURT BUILDING
KALABURGI -585 101
...RESPONDENT
(BY SRI SUBHASH MALLAPUR, SPL.PP)
THIS CRL.R.P. FILED U/SEC.397 AND 401 OF CR.P.C,
BY THE REVISION PETITIONER PRAYING TO SET ASIDE
THE ORDER DATED 17.07.2021 PASSED BY THE
2
PRINCIPAL SESSIONS JUDGE-SPECIAL JUDGE, VIJAYPUR
IN CRL.MISC.NO.766/2021 AND ETC.
THIS PETITION COMING ON FOR ADMISSION THIS
DAY, THE COURT MADE THE FOLLOWING:
ORDER
Heard the learned counsel for the petitioner and also the learned counsel appearing for the Lokayukta police.
2. The factual matrix of the case is that Lokayukta police have conducted the raid to trap the petitioner herein since he has demanded the bribe from the complainant. Accordingly, following the procedure, trap was conducted and apart from the trap, an amount of Rs.4,98,450/- was found from the almirah. Out of that, an amount of Rs.7,020/- was returned to the petitioner and the remaining amount of Rs.4,92,300/- was seized by panchama dated 12.01.2021. The Lokayukta police have registered the case against him for the offence punishable under Section 7(a) of the Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988 and the matter is under investigation. During the 3 investigation, an application has been filed before the Trial Court for the release of the amount which was seized from the almirah. While dismissing the application filed under Section 451 and 457 of Cr.P.C. read with Section 22 of the Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988, the Trial Court came to the conclusion that the amount claimed by the petitioner is his savings amount out of the salary but he did not gave any proper explanation as well as the document with regard to the excess amount of Rs.4,92,300/- found in his house. Being aggrieved by the said order, the present revision petition is filed.
3. The counsel for the petitioner vehemently contended that the amount was seized from the house of the petitioner herein and this petitioner has made the claim that the said amount is his savings amount and seizure is also contrary to the allegations made in the complaint. The Special Judge failed to take note of the fact that he being the lawful owner is entitled to the impugned custody of the seized currency notes. The 4 counsel in support of his arguments relied upon the order passed in CRL.R.P.No.2281/2013 connected with CRL.R.P.No.2230/2013 and brought to notice of this Court the paragraph 15 and so also discussion made in paragraphs 16 to 22 and in paragraph 23, this Court comes to the conclusion that even if the articles are released to the accused, prosecution will not be impacted adversely because seizure is on record and everything is documented. Such documentary evidence is receivable without even proof as envisaged under Section 294 of Cr.P.C. and prosecution can certainly resort to this provision and obtain consent of the accused to mark it in evidence. Even if the accused is found guilty, he will be liable to suffer sentence to forfeit the property or the amount being the value of the articles in excess of the known source of income and allowed the petition subject to certain conditions. The counsel also relied upon the judgment of this Court reported in 2019(1) KAR. L. J 823 between SMT. SHANTA ALIAS KAMLA vs STATE OF KARNATAKA and brought to notice of this Court 5 discussions made in paragraphs 10 and 11 wherein discussed the judgment of the Apex Court in the case of SUNDERVHAI AMBALA DESAI vs STATE OF GUJARAT reported in (2002)10 SCC 283 wherein the Apex Court observed that there is need for expeditious and judicious exercise of power under Section 451 of Cr.P.C. which would serve various purposes and allowed the petition.
4. Per contra, the counsel appearing for the Lokayukta would submits that the amount is not seized at the time of accepting the bribe and amount which was seized was kept in the house without any proof and the amount is tune of Rs.4,99,325/- and the petitioner has not furnished any documentary proof for said amount. When such being the case, it cannot be released. The counsel submits that investigation is going on and charge sheet is yet to be filed and the said amount may be released only after filing of the charge sheet.
5. Having heard the respective counsel appearing for the parties and also on perusal of the evidence 6 available on record, the point that would arise for the consideration of this court is:
Whether the order passed by the Special Court on 17.07.2021 requires interference of this Court to invoke Section 397 read with Section 401 of Cr.P.C.?
6. Having heard the respective counsel it is not in dispute that the amount of Rs.4,98,450/- was seized and after deducting an amount of Rs.7,020/-, the remaining amount of Rs.4,92,300/- was seized by drawing panchanama. There is no dispute with regard to the seizure is concerned but the petitioner claims that the said amount is his salary money and he also not placed any documentary proof to show that the said money is his savings amount out of his salary. But the fact is that it is a seized currency notes. When there is no dispute with regard to the seizure and also the principles laid down in the judgment referred supra, wherein also the case of prevention of corruption act. This Court relying upon the 7 SUNDERBHAI AMBALAL DESAI's case, comes to the conclusion that the petitioner can furnish the solvent surety for the release of amount. No doubt, while releasing the property which was seized for interim custody, the Court can impose the conditions also. But here is a case of currency notes. The same is not accounted by produced any documentary proof. It is also important to note that when trap was conducted, at that time they found unaccounted amount of Rs.4,99,325/-. The investigation is not yet completed and IO has to collect the documents for the said amount. Hence, I do not find any merit in the petition at this juncture. The IO has to investigate the matter as to how this petitioner got the said amount and after the investigation, the petitioner can approach the Trial Court by placing documentary proof for the said amount. At this juncture, I do not find any merit in the petition.
7. In view of the discussions made above, I pass the following:
8
ORDER The revision petition is rejected. However, liberty is given to the petitioner to approach the Trial Court after filing the charge sheet.
Sd/-
JUDGE SAN