Canara Bank vs State Of Karnataka on 23 November, 2022

[Cites 7, Cited by 0]

Karnataka High Court

Canara Bank vs State Of Karnataka on 23 November, 2022

Bench: K.Natarajan

                              1


      IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU

       DATED THIS THE 23RD DAY OF NOVEMBER, 2022

                             BEFORE

           THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE K.NATARAJAN

          WRIT PETITION No.21007 of 2022 (GM-RES)

BETWEEN

CANARA BANK
HONNAGANAHALLI BRANCH
SITUATED AT HONNAGANAHALLI VILLAGE
SATHANUR HOBLI
KANAKAPURA TLAUK
KARNATAKA 562126
REPRESENTED BY THE
ASSISTANT GENERAL MANAGER
SRI. J.V. RAMAKANTHA RAO                ... PETITIONER

(BY SRI SHETTY VIGNESH SHIVARAM, ADVOCATE)

AND

STATE OF KARNATAKA
BY SATHANUR P.S
SATHANUR VILLAGE
HOBLI,
KANAKAPURA TLAUK
KARNATAKA 562126
                                           ... RESPONDENT
(BY SRI B.J. ROHITH, HCGP)

      THIS WRIT PETITION IS FILED UNDER ARTICLES 226
AND 227 OF THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA READ WITH
SECTION 482 OF CR.P.C PRAYING TO QUASH THE ORDER
DATED 03.12.2021 PASSED BY II ADDITIONAL DISTRICT AND
SESSIONS JUDGE RAMANAGARA, AT KANAKAPURA IN
CRL.R.P.NO.5004/2021 IN SO FAR AS THE CONDITION NO.2
AND 3 IMPOSED IN THE ORDER VIDE ANNX-B. GRANT AN
INTERIM ORDER TO DIRECT THE RESPONDENT NOT TO TAKE
                                   2


ANY COERCIVE ACTION AGAINST THE PETITIONER PURSUANT
TO THE ORDER DATED 03.12.2021 BY THE LEARNED IIND
ADDITIONAL DISTRICT AND SESSIONS JUDGE, RAMANAGARA
VIDE KANAKAPURA IN CRL.R.P.NO.5004/2021 AND STAY
FURTHER PROCEEDINGS VIDE ANNX-A AND ANNX-B.

     THIS WRIT PETITION COMING ON FOR PRELIMINARY
HEARING THIS DAY, THE COURT MADE THE FOLLOWING:

                               ORDER

This petition filed by the petitioner/complainant Bank under Article 226 and 227 Constitution of India for modifying the conditions in the order passed in Crl.R.P.No.5004/2021 passed by II Additional District and Sessions Judge, Ramanagara sitting at Kanakapura while releasing the property to the petitioner in Crime No.125/2021 for the offence punishable under Section 380 and 408 of IPC.

2. Heard the arguments of learned counsel for the petitioner and learned HCGP for the State.

3. The case of the petitioner is that the petitioner said to be a banker where there was a misappropriation by the bank employees and complaint came to be registered by the police and during the course of investigation they 3 recovered the golden ornaments subject to the PF numbers mentioned in the police report. The petitioner approached the Magistrate for releasing the property for interim custody by filing application under section 451 and 457 of Cr.P.C which came to be rejected by the Magistrate and subsequently, in the revision the first appellate court allowed the application and ordered to release the property with interim conditions as follows;

"CONDITIONS (1) Petitioner shall execute Indemnity Bond equal to the value of the properties shown in PF and with one surety for like sum.

(2) The petitioner shall produce those properties so released before the court as and when required for the purpose of identification at the time of trial.

(3) The petitioner shall not change the nature and colour or identity of the properties so released.

(4) Before releasing the said gold articles and cash shown in PF the S.H.O. is directed to take photographs of them from all angles along with applicant and shall produce the said photographs before the jurisdictional Magistrate."

The petitioner being aggrieved with the condition Nos.2 and 3 appeared before this Court stating that the petitioner is only banker and they are only temporary custodian of the articles and they have to give back the articles to the customers after the payment of the loan borrowed by customers. Therefore, the conditions that those properties shall be produced for identification is not practical and the other conditions is that the petitioner shall not challenge the colour and identity of the articles, also not possible, if the same is released to the customers. Therefore prayed for modification of the conditions.

4. Having heard argument and perusal of record, ofcourse the petitioner is banker who is only temporary custodian of the articles which were subject matter of trial. The first appellate court rightly released the properties to the banker for interim custody on a condition for executing the bond with a sureties. However, the conditions Nos.2 and 3, that the same properties shall be produced before the court at the time of evidence for identification of the 5 material and another condition not to change the identity is not correct, as the petitioner is only a temporary custodian and requires to return the same to the original owners. Such being the case, in view of the judgment of of Sunderbhai Ambalal Desai Vs State of Gujarath by the Hon'ble Supreme Court it has been held that by taking photographs of articles while releasing by the Investigating Officer, that photographs with panchanama can be produced before the Court for the purpose of identification of the article before the Court which may be useful to the court for identification and to appreciate the evidence as per Section 9 of the Evidence Act. Therefore, the condition Nos. 2 and 3 passed by the first appellate court requires to be modified.

Accordingly, this petition is allowed.

The condition Nos.2 and 3 of the order in Crl.R.P.No.5004/2021 is hereby set aside and modified as under;

The investigating officer shall take the photograph of the articles and weight of the articles with a panchanama and release the same to the bankers, the photographs and panchanama can be used for identification before the trial court and conditions no.3 is already deleted.

Accordingly, this petition is disposed of.

Sd/-

JUDGE AKV/-

Unlock Advanced Research with PRISMAI

Karnataka High Court