Karnataka High Court
Sri M Murugesh vs The State Of Karnataka on 4 October, 2023
Author: Rajendra Badamikar
Bench: Rajendra Badamikar
-1-
NC: 2023:KHC:35906
CRL.RP No. 576 of 2015
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU
DATED THIS THE 4TH DAY OF OCTOBER, 2023
BEFORE
THE HON'BLE MR JUSTICE RAJENDRA BADAMIKAR
CRIMINAL REVISION PETITION NO.576 OF 2015
BETWEEN:
SRI M MURUGESH,
S/O MEENAXIAPPA,
AGED ABOUT 52 YEARS,
RESIDING AT NO.32,
2ND MAIN ROAD, ANJANEYA BLOCK,
SHESHADRIPURAM, BENGALURU - 20.
...PETITIONER
(BY SRI. B SRINIVAS, ADVOCATE)
AND:
1. THE STATE OF KARNATAKA,
VIDHANA SOUDHA,
BENGALURU - 01,
REPRESENTED BY ASHOKNAGAR
POLICE STATION,
COMMISSARIAT ROAD,
Digitally BANGALORE - 560 001.
signed by
RENUKAMBA
KG 2. WG. CDR. M R SHIRAZI, SC VM,
Location: (RETIRED INDIAN AIR FORCE),
HIGH COURT AGED ABOUT 70 YEARS,
OF S/O LATE M A SHIRAZI,
KARNATAKA
PRESENTLY R/AT NO.1/2,
LONGFORD ROAD,
LONGFORD TOWN,
BENGALURU - 560 025.
...RESPONDENTS
(BY SRI. JAIRAM SIDDI, HCGP FOR R1;
SRI. ARJUN REGO, ADVOCATE FOR LPE REGO,
ADVOCATE FOR R2)
-2-
NC: 2023:KHC:35906
CRL.RP No. 576 of 2015
THIS CRL.RP IS FILED UNDER SECTION 397(1) R/W 401 OF
THE CODE OF CRIMINAL PROCEDURE PRAYING TO SET ASIDE
THE ORDER DATED 28.04.2015 PASSED IN
CRL.A.NO.25064/2014 ON THE FILE OF THE LVII ADDL. CITY
CIVIL AND S.J., MAYOHALL, BANGALORE, ALLOWING THE APPEAL
AND SETTING ASIDE THE ORDER PASSED BY THE TRIAL COURT
DATED 3.3.2014 PASSED BY THE XI A.C.M.M., MAYO HALL,
BANGALORE IN C.C.NO.24381/2008 AND ALLOW THIS PETITION.
THIS PETITION, COMING ON FOR FINAL HEARING, THIS
DAY, THE COURT MADE THE FOLLOWING:
ORDER
This revision is filed against the order of LVII Additional City Civil and Sessions Judge in Crl.A.No.25064/2014, whereby the appellate Court allowed the appeal pertaining to release of the property and directed that properties are to be released in favour of the complainant-respondent No.2 herein.
2. For the sake of convenience, the parties herein are referred with the original ranks occupied by them before the trial Court.
3. The accused/revision petitioner was prosecuted for the offences punishable under Sections 448 & 380 of IPC in respect of the property seized under PF Nos.154 & 155/2004 -3- NC: 2023:KHC:35906 CRL.RP No. 576 of 2015 by Ashoknagar Police Station. The charge sheet was also submitted against the accused/revision petitioner herein and after trial, the trial Court acquitted the revision petitioner/accused for the offences punishable under Sections 448 & 380 of IPC. However, the trial Court ordered that the seized property in PF Nos.154 & 155/2004 were ordered to be released in favour of the accused/revision petitioner on his executing an indemnity bond for Rs.7,00,000/- with one surety for likesum.
4. This order came to be challenged before LVII Additional City Civil and Sessions Judge by the complainant and the learned Sessions Judge after re-appreciating the oral and documentary evidence, set aside the order of the learned Magistrate so far as it relates to release of the property and directed that the property under PF No.154 & 155/2004 be released in favour of the complainant.
5. This order is being challenged in this revision by the accused/revision petitioner.
-4-
NC: 2023:KHC:35906 CRL.RP No. 576 of 2015
6. Heard the arguments advanced by the learned counsel for the revision petitioner and learned counsel for the respondent. Perused the records.
7. The records clearly establish that the property seized are electrical goods lying in the property of the complainant. The undisputed fact is that the complainant has entered into a joint development agreement with ACE Constructions. The ACE Constructions have engaged the services of the accused/revision petitioners herein for execution of the electrical and carpentry work. There was a joint development agreement between the complainant and ACE constructions. Subsequently, the ACE constructions did not fulfill their obligation and it is asserted that the revision petitioner/accused was required to receive a certain sum from the ACE constructions.
8. Admittedly, the seized properties were lying in the premises of complainant, which was initially entrusted by him to ACE Constructions. The properties were lifted by the accused/revision petitioner on the ground that he is required -5- NC: 2023:KHC:35906 CRL.RP No. 576 of 2015 to receive certain dues from ACE Constructions. In this regard, he was prosecuted and the trial Court has acquitted him for the offences punishable under Sections 448 & 380 of IPC. However, the trial Court has ordered for custody of the property. Strangely, when the trial Court has ordered the disposal of the property under 452 of Cr.P.C, it has again asked the accused for executing an indemnity bond to the tune of Rs.7,00,000/- with one surety for likesum. It clearly discloses that the trial Court is not certain as to who is owner of the property and in that event, trial Court ought to have directed the seized property be auctioned and the parties should have been directed to approach the civil court to establish their title over the property and receive the proceeds realized out of the said property by way of auction.
9. The learned Session Judge has reversed the said order and directed that property shall be released in favour of the complainant. The undisputed fact is that the property was lying in the premises of the complainant and it was lifted by the accused/revision petitioner. The remedy for revision -6- NC: 2023:KHC:35906 CRL.RP No. 576 of 2015 petitioner/ accused is to establish his claim by filing a suit for recovery of dues against the ACE Constructions and he could have got attached this property to claim his relief, but directly he has lifted the properties which were lying in the land of complainant and hence, the accused cannot lay any claim over this property as it does not belong to him and his claim is that in view of certain dues, he is asserting his right over the properties. He is required to substantiate his right over the property in a civil suit.
10. No illegality or infirmity is found in the order of learned Sessions Judge. Hence, revision petition being devoid of any merits does not survive for consideration. Accordingly, the petition stands dismissed.
Sd/-
JUDGE DS List No.: 1 Sl No.: 13