Karnataka High Court
S.T. Goudar vs The State By on 19 August, 2013
Author: N.Ananda
Bench: N.Ananda
1
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BANGALORE
DATED THIS THE 19TH DAY OF AUGUST 2013
BEFORE
THE HON'BLE MR.JUSTICE N.ANANDA
CRIMINAL REVISION PETITION No.36/2013 C/W
CRIMINAL REVISION PETITION Nos.37/2013, 38/2013,
39/2013 & 40/2013
CRL.RP.36/2013
BETWEEN:
S.T. GOUDAR
S/O THIPPANNA GOURDAR
AGED ABOUT 62 YEARS
RTD. DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF EXCISE
POLT NO.12, SY NO.227/11-12
BANKERS COLONY
BEHIND MANVI CHAL, GADAG
KARNATAKA-587112. ... PETITIONER
(BY SRI R B DESHPANDE, ADV.)
AND:
THE STATE BY
LOKAYUKTHA POLICE
CHITRADURGA-577501. ... RESPONDENT
(BY SMT.T M GAYATHRI, ADV. )
THIS PETITION IS FILED UNDER SECTIONS 397 & 401
CR.P.C., PRAYING TO QUASH/SET ASIDE THE ORDER
DATED:3.10.12 PASSED BY THE PRL. DISTRICT & SESSIONS
JUDGE, CHITRADURGA IN SPL.C.(PCA) NO.11/2011 & ETC.
2
CRL.RP NO.37/2013
BETWEEN:
SHIVAPPA CHANDAPPA THALLIKERE
S/O CHANDAPPA THALLIKERE
AGED ABOUT 84 YEARS
OCC:AGRICULTURIST
R/O # 163/98, AMEEN GADA
HUNAGUNDA TALUK
BAGALKOTE DISTRICT
KARNATAKA STATE-587112. ... PETITIONER
(BY SRI R B DESHPANDE, ADV.)
AND:
THE STATE BY
LOKAYUKTHA POLICE
CHITRADURGA-577501. ... RESPONDENT
(BY SMT.T M GAYATHRI, ADV.)
THIS PETITION IS FILED UNDER SECTIONS 397 & 401
CR.P.C., PRAYING TO QUASH/SET ASIDE THE ORDER
DATED:3.10.12 PASSED BY THE PRL. DISTRICT & SESSIONS
JUDGE, CHITRADURGA IN SPL.C.(PCA) NO.11/2011 & ETC.
CRL.RP NO.38/2013
BETWEEN:
1. SHIVAPPA CHANDAPPA THALLIKERE
S/O CHANDAPPA THALLIKERE
AGED ABOUT 84 YEARS
OCC:AGRICULTURIST
R/O # 163/98, AMEEN GADA
HUNAGUNDA TALUK, BAGALKOTE DISTRICT
KARNATAKA STATE-587 112.
2. SMT.SHOBA S.GOWDAR
D/O S.T.GOWDAR
AGED ABOUT 30 YEARS
R/O PLOT NO.12, BEHIND MANVI PALACE
BANKERS COLONY
3
MULUGUNDA NAKA, GADAG-582 101. ... PETITIONERS
(BY SRI R B DESHPANDE, ADV.)
AND:
THE STATE BY LOKAYUKTHA POLICE
CHITRADURGA-577 501. ... RESPONDENT
(BY SMT.T M GAYATHRI, ADV.)
THIS PETITION IS FILED UNDER SECTIONS 397 & 401
CR.P.C., PRAYING TO QUASH/SET ASIDE THE ORDER
DATED:3.10.12 PASSED BY THE PRL. DISTRICT & SESSIONS
JUDGE, CHITRADURGA IN SPL.C.(PCA) NO.11/2011 & ETC.
CRL.RP NO.39/2013
BETWEEN:
1. S.T. GOUDAR
S/O THIPPANNA GOURDAR
AGED ABOUT 62 YEARS
RTD. DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF EXCISE
PLOT NO.12, SY NO.227/11-12
BANKERS COLONY
BEHIND MANVI CHAL GADAG
KARNATAKA-582 101.
2. CHANDRAKANTH S. GOWDAR
S/O S.T.GOWDAR, AGED ABOUT 32 YEARS
OCC:AGRICULTURIST
ACUPRESSURE TEHNICIAN AND EXPERT
R/O PLOT NO.12, SY.NO.227/11-12
BANKERS COLONY
BEHIND MANVI CHAL, GADAG
KARNATAKA-582 101. ... PETITIONERS
(BY SRI R B DESHPANDE, ADV.)
AND:
THE STATE BY LOKAYUKTHA POLICE
CHITRADURGA-577 501. ... RESPONDENT
4
(BY SMT.T M GAYATHRI, ADV.)
THIS PETITION IS FILED UNDER SECTIONS 397 & 401
CR.P.C., PRAYING TO QUASH/SET ASIDE THE ORDER
DATED:3.10.12 PASSED BY THE PRL. DISTRICT & SESSIONS
JUDGE, CHITRADURGA IN SPL.C.(PCA) NO.11/2011 & ETC.
CRL.RP NO.40/2013
BETWEEN:
SMT. MYNAVATHI S. GOWDAR
W/O S T GOWDAR
AGED ABOUT 56 YEARS
OCC:AGRICULTURIST AND HOUSE HOLD
R/O PLOT NO.12, SY NO. 277/11-12
BANKERS COLONY, BEHIND MANVI CHAL
GADAG, KARNATAKA-582101. ... PETITIONER
(BY SRI R B DESHPANDE, ADV.)
AND:
THE STATE BY
LOKAYUKTHA PLICE
CHITRADURGA-577501. ... RESPONDENT
(BY SMT.T M GAYATHRI, ADV.)
THIS PETITION IS FILED UNDER SECTIONS 397 & 401
CR.P.C., PRAYING TO QUASH/SET ASIDE THE ORDER
DATED:3.10.12 PASSED BY THE PRL. DISTRICT & SESSIONS
JUDGE, CHITRADURGA IN SPL.C.(PCA) NO.11/2011 & ETC.
THESE PETITIONS COMING ON FOR ADMISSION THIS
DAY, THE COURT MADE THE FOLLOWING:
5
ORDER
These petitions have arisen out of common order made in Spl.C (PCA) No.11/2011 pending on the file of Prl. District and Special Judge at Chitradurga.
2. The petitioner in Crl.RP 36/2013 namely S.T.Gouder is facing trial for offences punishable under Sections 13 (1) (e) r/w 13 (2) of the Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988, on the allegations that his known source of income during his tenure of service from 03.02.1975 to 27.10.2009 was a sum of Rs.38,91,060/- against which he was found in possession of various properties worth Rs.2,06,81,444/- and the case is pending trial.
3. The petitioner in Crl.RP 37/2013 is the father-in-law of first accused. The second petitioner in Crl.P 38/2013 is daughter of first accused. According to investigation records, the father-in-law of first accused had joint account with the first accused and 6 daughter of first accused in State Bank of Mysore, Gadag Branch. He had a sum of Rs.1,12,145/- in the S.B.Account and substantial amount in fixed deposit receipts. As per investigation records, the father-in-law of first accused and daughter of first accused were benami holders of amount in deposit. The first accused has invested this disproportionate assets in the name of his father-in-law and his daughter.
4. The second petitioner in Crl.RP 39/2013 is the son of first accused. The first accused and his son were operating joint account in State Bank of Mysore, Gadag Branch.
5. The petitioner in Crl.RP 40/2013 is the wife of first accused. She was holding substantial amount in fixed deposits both in Central Bank of India and State Bank of India at Gadag. She has contended that amounts invested by her were savings out of her 7 household expenditure and she had also received gifts from her parents-in-law.
6. In a decision reported in 1999 Crl.LJ 4305 (in the case of State of Maharashtra -vs- Tapas D. Neogy) the Supreme Court has held:
"12. Having considered the divergent views taken by different High Courts with regard to the power of seizure under Section 102 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, and whether the bank account can be held to be 'property' within the meaning of said Section 102(1), we see no justification to give any narrow interpretation to the provisions of the Criminal Procedure Code. It is well known that corruption in public offices has become so rampant that it has become difficult to cope up with the same. Then again the time consumed by the Courts in concluding the trials is another factor which should be borne in mind in interpreting the provisions of Section 102 of the Criminal Procedure Code and the underlying object engrafted therein, inasmuch as if there can be no order of seizure of the bank account of the accused then the entire money deposited in a bank which is ultimately held in the trial to be the outcome of the illegal gratification, could be withdrawn by the accused and the Courts would be powerless to get the said money which has any direct link with the commission of the offence committed by the accused as a public officer. We are, therefore, persuaded to take the view that the bank account of the accused or any of his 8 relation is 'property' within the meaning of Section 102 of the Criminal Procedure Code and a police officer in course of investigation can seize or prohibit the operation of the said account if such assets have direct links with the commission of the offence for which the police officer is investigating into. The contrary view expressed by Karnataka, Gauhati and Allahabad High Courts, does not represent the correct law. It may also be seen that under the Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988, in the matter of imposition of fine under sub-section (2) of Section 13, the legislatures have provided that the Courts in fixing the amount of fine shall take into consideration the amount or the value of the property, which the accused person has obtained by committing the offence or where the conviction is for an offence referred to in clause
(e) of sub- section(1) of Section 13, the pecuniary resources or property for which the accused person is unable to account satisfactorily. The interpretation given by us in respect of the power of seizure under Section 102 of the Criminal Procedure Code is in accordance with the intention of the legislature engrafted in Section 16 of the Prevention of Corruption Act referred to above. In the aforesaid premises, we have no hesitation to come to the conclusion that the High Court of Bombay committed error in holding that the police officer could not have seized the bank account or could not have issued any direction to the bank officer, prohibiting the account of the accused from being operated upon. Though we have laid down the law, but so far as the present case is concerned, the order impugned has already been given effect to and the accused has been operating upon his account, and so, we do not interfere with the same."9
7. The matter is pending trial. The law is fairly well settled that disposal of property pending conclusion of trial is a matter of convenience of the court. The accused/applicants cannot claim interim custody as a matter of right. Above all, under the provisions of Criminal Law (Amendment) Ordinance, 1944, if the accused is found guilty of offences punishable under Sections 13 (1) (e) r/w 13 (2) of the Prevention of Corruption Act, the properties which are disproportionate to known source of income are liable for confiscation. The accused and other applicants have pleaded that they require amount in deposits towards education expenditure, medical expenditure.
8. As already stated, during pendency of trial, properties cannot be released to petitioners or any other persons unless the court finds it difficult to retain the property or preserve the property. In this petition, such contingency has not arisen. The investigation records 10 would disclose that the income of accused during the tenure of his office from 03.02.1975 to 27.10.2009 was a sum of Rs.38,91,060/- and the accused was found in possession of properties worth Rs.2,06,81,444/-. The disproportionality is nearly ten times (after excluding the household expenditure of the accused from the known source of income). Therefore, the learned trial judge has rightly dismissed the applications.
9. There is no merit in the petitions. The petitions are dismissed.
Sd/-
JUDGE Np/-