Karnataka High Court
State Of Karnataka vs K. Krishna Gowda And Anr. on 4 October, 2005
Equivalent citations: 2005CRILJ259, ILR2005KAR5722, 2006 CRI. L. J. 259, 2006 (1) AJHAR (NOC) 103 (KAR), 2005 AIR - KANT. H. C. R. 3027, (2006) 38 ALLINDCAS 277 (KAR), (2005) ILR (KANT) 5722, (2006) 2 RECCRIR 43, (2006) 1 ALLCRILR 329
Author: N.S. Veerabhadraiah
Bench: N.S. Veerabhadraiah
ORDER N.S. Veerabhadraiah, J.
1. This revision is by the Lokayuktha Police being aggrieved of the order passed in Lok.Crime No. 3/2001 by the Prl. Sessions Judge, Kolar dated 30.10.2002 allowing the application filed under Sections 451 and 457 of the Code of Criminal Procedure ordering for release of the amount seized.
2. The case of the Lokayuktha Police is as follows:
On a report of Sri. B. Lokesh, Police Inspector, Police Wing, Karnataka Lokayuktha, Kolar a case was registered in Crime No. 3/2001 for the offence punishable under Section 13(1)(e) read with Section 13(2) of the Prevention and Corruption Act, 1988 against the accused Sri K. Krishna Gowda, Supervisor, DCC Bank:, Kolar District alleging that in between 16.07.1975 and 27.03.2001 while working at Bangarpet, Malur and KGF, worked as attender at Bangarpet and promoted as Supervisor and worked at Malur and KGF, DCC Bank during various periods and acquired properties disproportionate to his known source of income to the extent of Rs. 41,25,000/-. On filing of the FIR, they seized various items of properties like gold, silver and other articles and also the cash of Rs. 70,000/- as per Mahazar dated 28.03.2001. The seized properties were subjected to the property column along with the report and found excess assets to the tune of Rs. 41,25,000/-. While the investigation is in progress, accused K. Krishna Gowda filed an application under Sections 451 and 457 of Code of Criminal Procedure to release the cash of Rs. 70,000/- seize under Mahazar dated 28.03.2001. The learned Sessions Judge by an order dated 30.10.2002 ordered for release of cash of Rs. 70,000/- seized from the possession of the accused in Crime No. 3/2001 of Lokayuktha Police on his executing a bond of Rs. 75,000/-. It is this order, which is questioned in the present Criminal Revision Petition.
3. Learned High Court Government Pleader Sri C. Ramakrishna, vehemently contended that when the Lokayuktha Police have registered a case against the accused K. Krishna Gowda for the offence punishable under Section 13(1)(e) read with Section 13(2) of Prevention and Corruption Act, 1988 having seized the valuable properties and cash to the tune of Rs. 70,000/- that too at the stage of investigation, releasing the seized amount of Rs. 70,000/- by invoking the provision of Sections 451 and 457 Cr. P.C. are erroneous and untenable. He also submitted that the Learned Sessions Judge has ignored the provision of law, though the accused has been specifically charged for amassing the wealth disproportionate to his known source of income, the order has been passed in a casual and capricious manner. Therefore, prayed to set aside the order and to direct the accused to remit back the amount to the custody of the Court.
4. On the other hand, respondent-accused Sri. K. Krishna Gowda files a memo duly signed which reads as follows:
"That the state has preferred this petition against the order passed by the Learned Prl. Sessions Judge, Kolar, in releasing the cash of Rs. 70,000/- to me in Crime No. 3/2001 of Lokayuktha Police, Kolar. That the said amount has been seized from my house and I do not dispute the said recovery. I got the cash released to celebrate my daughter's marriage. I am ready to offer bank guarantee to the said amount with in three months from this date, in the interest of justice."
5. In light of the above submissions, the point for consideration that arises:
"Whether the Learned Sessions Judge is justified in ordering to release the seized amount of Rs. 70,000/- in favour of the accused? What Orders."
6. Section 451 of Cr.P.C. enables the Court for disposal of property pending Trial in certain cases, which reads as follows:
"Orders for custody and disposal of property pending trial in certain cases-When any property is produced before any Criminal Court during any inquiry or trial, the Court may make such order as it thinks fit for the proper custody of such property pending the conclusion of the inquiry or trial, and, if the properly is subject to speedy and natural decay, or if it is otherwise expedient so to do, the Court may, after recording such evidence as it thinks necessary, order it to be sold or otherwise disposed of."
7. Section 457 of Cr.P.C. prescribed the procedure to be followed by the Police Officer on seizure of the property, which reads as follows:
"Procedure by police upon seizure of property:
(1) Whenever the seizure of property by any police officer is reported to a Magistrate under the provisions of this Code, and such property is not produced before a Criminal Court during an inquiry or trial, the Magistrate may make such order as he thinks fit respecting the disposal of such property or the delivery of such property to the person entitled to the possession thereof, or if such person cannot be ascertained, respecting the custody and production of such property.
(2) If the person so entitled is known, the Magistrate may order the property to be delivered to him on such conditions (if any) as the Magistrate thinks fit and if such person is unknown, the Magistrate may detain it and shall, in such case, issue a proclamation specifying the articles of which such property consists, and requiring any person who may have a claim thereto, to appear before him and establish his claim within six months from the date of such proclamation."
8. In the present case, the accused is alleged to have amassed the wealth disproportionate to his known source of income and registered a case under Section 13(1)(e) read with Section 13(2) of the Prevention and Corruption Act, 1988. It is further seen that the Investigating Officer has seized an amount of Rs. 70,000/- with other valuables under Mahazars. The report of the Investigation Officer shows that the accused has amassed the wealth in excess to his known source of income to the tune of Rs. 41,25,000/-. When there are prima facie materials on record, it is not coming out as to what made the Learned Sessions Judge to release an amount of Rs. 70,000/-. The impugned order came to be passed while the investigation was in progress, it is another error committed by the Learned Sessions Judge in ordering for release of the properties. It is brought to the notice of the Court that after completion of the investigation the charge sheet is filed.
9. It is no doubt true that the Learned Sessions Judge has inherent powers of releasing the properties during pre-trial stage or after completion of the investigation. The Court should bear in mind the nature of offence that is alleged against the accused, the properties that are recovered from the custody of the accused and to examine as to whether it was feasible to release the properties.
10. Section 451 of Cr.P.C. enables the Court for disposal of properties pending trial whereas Section 457 of Cr.P.C. prescribed the procedure to be followed on seizure of the properties regarding its disposal.
11. In the present case, when the case is registered for the offence punishable under Section 13(1)(e) read with Section 13(2) of the Prevention and Corruption Act, 1988 with a specific allegation that the accused in the course of his employment in various capacities has amassed the wealth disproportionate to his known source of income, it is in that context, the wealth in excess to his known source of income to the tune of Rs. 41,25,000/- is reported and the cash of Rs. 70,000/- as well as other valuables articles were seized. In that view of the matter neither Section 451 of Cr.P.C. nor Section 457 of Cr.P.C. would have been made applicable to the facts of this case and thereby the Learned Sessions Judge has committed an error apparent on the face of the records. The order passed by the Learned Sessions Judge releasing the properties is wholly unreasonable or perverse and not based on any prosecution materials and suffers from serious illegality including ignorance of the provision of law for which the accused has been charged. Therefore, the release of cash is wholly untenable which is liable to be interfered with.
12. For the foregoing reasons, the revision is allowed by setting aside the order dated 30.10.2002 releasing the amount in favour of the accused. The Learned Sessions Judge is hereby directed to direct the accused to re-deposit the amount released in his favour, forthwith.
The memo filed by the accused is hereby rejected.
With the said observations, this Criminal Revision Petition is allowed.