Karnataka High Court
State Of Karnataka vs Sri. Rameshappa on 18 February, 2020
Author: K.Natarajan
Bench: K.Natarajan
1
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU
DATED THIS THE 18TH DAY OF FEBRUARY, 2020
BEFORE
THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE K.NATARAJAN
CRIMINAL REVISION PETITION No.2/2017
BETWEEN
STATE OF KARNATAKA,
REPRESENTED BY THE POLICE INSPECTOR,
KARNATAKA LOKAYUKTA,
POLICE WING, CITY DIVISION,
BENGALURU - 560 001.
...PETITIONER
(BY SRI. VENKATESH.S.ARABATTI, SPL. PP)
AND
SRI. RAMESHAPPA
(SINCE DECEASED BY LRS),
1. SRI. ULLAS,
SON OF LATE SRI RAMESHAPPA,
AGED ABOUT 34 YEARS,
2 . SRI. PAVAN
SON OF LATE SRI. RAMESHAPPA,
AGED ABOUT 30 YEARS,
BOTH RESIDING AT NO.14,
PUTTALINGAIAH ROAD,
PADMANABHANAGAR,
BENGALURU - 560 070.
... RESPONDENTS
(BY SMT. K.M.ROHINI, ADVOCATE FOR R1; SRI. V.C.RAJU,
ADVOCATE FOR R2.)
2
THIS CRL.RP. IS FILED U/S.397 R/W 401 CR.P.C. BY
THE ADVOCATE FOR THE PETITIONER PRAYING THAT
THIS HON'BLE COURT MAY BE PLEASED TO SET ASIDE
THE ORDER DATED 28.07.2016 IN SPL.C.NO.73/2011
PASSED BY THE XXIII ADDL. CITY CIVIL AND SESSIONS
JUDGE AND SPL. JUDGE, BENGALURU URBAN DISTRICT,
BENGALURU.
THIS CRL.RP. COMING ON FOR ADMISSION THIS
DAY, THE COURT MADE THE FOLLOWING:-
ORDER
This revision petition is filed by the State of Karnataka, represented by the Lokayuktha Police, assailing the order passed by the XXIII Additional City Civil and Sessions Judge and Special Judge, Bangalore Urban District, Bangalore City (hereinafter referred to as 'trial Court' for short) in Spl.C.C.No.73/2011, dated 28/07/2016, for releasing the seized articles and amount/property by the Investigating Officer during investigation, to the respondents under Section 452 of Cr.P.C.
2. Heard the learned Special Public Prosecutor, Sri. Venkatesh.S.Arabatti appearing for the petitioner- 3 Lokayuktha Police as well as learned counsels appearing for the respondent Nos.1 & 2.
3. The rank of the parties before the trial Court is retained for the sake of convenience.
4. The factual matrix of the case is that the petitioner-Lokayuktha police filed charge sheet against deceased-accused R.Rameshappa who is the father of respondent Nos.1 & 2 (hereinafter referred to as 'deceased-accused R.Rameshappa' for short). The charge sheet came to be filed against the deceased- accused R.Rameshappa under Section 13(1)(e) r/w Section 13(2) of the Prevention of Corruption Act (hereinafter referred to as 'P.C.Act' for short) alleging that the deceased-accused R.Rameshappa during his service as a public servant has amassed the assets more than known source of income to the tune of Rs.6,57,355.90. After filing of the charge sheet before the trial Court and after taking cognizance of the offence 4 the respondents' father deceased-accused R.Rameshappa died and charges against the deceased- accused R.Rameshappa was abated. Subsequently, these respondents-Ullas & Pavan who are claimed to be the children of the deceased-accused R.Rameshappa filed an application under Section 452 of Cr.P.C for release of the articles and amount/property, which was seized by the Investigating Officer under P.F.Nos.40/2006 & 41/2006. The trial Court, after hearing the arguments, by order dated 28/7/2016 allowed the application filed by the respondents and directed the Investigating Officer to release cash, gold and silver ornaments and other documents seized under P.F.Nos.40/2006 & 41/2006. Assailing the same, the Lokayuktha police filed this revision petition before this Court.
5. Learned Special Public Prosecutor appearing for the Lokayuktha police has contended that the order 5 under revision challenged herein is not sustainable under law. There is no trial or enquiry conducted by the trial Court in order to dispose of the property under Section 452 of Cr.P.C. There is no enquiry held, which is required under 458 of Cr.P.C. This being the case, releasing the property/articles and amounts in favour of the deceased-accused R.Rameshappa is not sustainable. The said property/articles and amounts are required to be confiscated to the State. Therefore, filed this revision petition for setting aside the order passed by the trial Court. Learned counsel in support of his contention relied upon the judgment of this Court in Criminial Appeal No.2717/2012, dated 03/09/2012 in the case of Laxman vs. The State of Karnataka and prayed to allow the revision petition.
6. Per contra, learned counsels appearing for respondent Nos.1 & 2 have supported the order passed by the trial Court and contended that though the 6 Lokayuktha Police filed charge sheet against the deceased-accused R.Rameshappa, father of the respondents, the charges were not proved and then the deceased-accused R.Rameshappa was not found guilty in order to confiscate the property/articles and amounts, which is alleged to have been amassed by the deceased-accused R.Rameshappa as against known source of income. When the guilt was not proved, he is presumed to be innocent as per criminal law. In the recent judgment of the Hon'ble Apex Court, the accused was died, the trial proceeded and he was found guilty, the property has been confiscated, wherein the Hon'ble Apex Court set aside the order and ordered to release the said property in the case of U. Subhadramma & Ors. vs. State of A.P. Rep. By Pub. Prosecutor & Anr. in Criminal Appeal No.1596/2011 and based upon the said judgment, the Coordinate Bench of this Court in Criminal Revision Petition No.982/2015, dated 23/8/2019 in the case of 7 S.T.Goudar S/o Thippanna Hanumappa (Since Dead Represented by his LR'S) vs. State by Lokayukta Police has ordered to release the property in favour of the legal representatives of the deceased-accused. Therefore, the order under revision does not call for interference. Hence, prayed for dismissing the revision petition.
7. Upon hearing the arguments of learned counsels for the parties and on perusal of the material placed on record, the only point which arises for consideration is whether the order under revision, releasing the property in favour of the legal representatives of the deceased- accused R.Rameshappa, after abatement of the charges, calls for interference by this Court.
8. On perusal of records, it is not in dispute that the Lokayuktha Police filed charge sheet against the deceased-accused R.Rameshappa, who is a public servant, for the offence punishable under Section 13(1) 8
(e) r/w Section 13(2) of the P.C.Act and subsequent to the filing of the charge sheet before commencement of the trial, the deceased-accused R.Rameshappa died and charges against him were abated. Subsequently, the respondents/legal representatives of deceased-accused R.Rameshappa have filed application under Section 452 of Cr.P.C seeking for release of the property/articles and amount, which was seized by the Investigating Officer vide P.F.Nos.40/2006 & 41/2006, which consisted cash, gold and silver ornaments. The allegation against the accused was that he had amassed property disproportionate to the known source of income to the worth of Rs.26,06,592.10 (63.38%) and the trial Court passed the impugned order by releasing the same. The same was challenged by the State through Lokayuktha Police.
9. It is an admitted fact that the State represented by Lokayuktha Police not filed any objections before the 9 trial Court except orally opposing the respondents' application. Before adverting the case on hand, the principle laid down by the Hon'ble Apex Court in the case of U. Subhadramma and others (supra) where in a similar case the accused was died but the trial Court proceeded to convict the accused and judgment was delivered against dead person and thereafter, in the appeal, the judgment was set aside. As held at paragraph Nos.7 & 10 of the judgment in the case of U. Subhadramma and others (supra) the Hon'ble Apex Court set aside the order of conviction and released the properties. Based upon the said judgment, the Coordinate Bench of this Court in the case of S.T.Goudar (supra) has also ordered to release the properties after abatement of charges. This Court also discussed about the judgment relied by the learned counsel for the petitioner in Criminial Appeal No.2717/2012, dated 03/09/2012 in the case of Laxman vs. The State of Karnataka and 10 distinguishes the order. The Coordinate Bench of this Court at paragraph No.15 of the judgment in Criminal Revision Petition No.982/2015 has held under:
"15. In the case on hand the above ratio is aptly applicable. Admittedly, there is no dispute or doubt that property was seized from the deceased-accused. There is no question of confiscation because the said properties have neither been attached nor any application has been filed by Lokayuktha for the purpose of confiscation. It is contended by the learned Special Public Prosecutor that before release of property an inquiry has to be held. I will make it clear here itself that there is no rival claim by anybody. As could be seen from the letter and spirit of Section 452 of Cr.P.C the word "inquiry" means after inquiry or the trial in a criminal case, such inquiry procedure can be adopted for limited purpose as stated above for disposal of the property only to ascertain as to whether they are the legal representatives to such property or not. But in the instant case admittedly, no such trial or proceedings have been held by the Criminal Court. Under such circumstances, the only alternative which is left open to the Court is to adopt the procedure in case of acquittal for disposal of the properties to such person who claims it, and is entitled to it. In the instant case as stated above no other 3rd claimants have made any claims with respect to the said properties before 11 the Court. In that light, the only option left open to the Court is to hold inquiry for a limited purpose i.e., only to ascertain as to whether the applicants are the only legal representatives of the deceased S.T.Goudar or not. Except that it cannot go and come to any other conclusion, as rightly pointed out by the learned Senior Counsel there is no general conspiracy or no other accused is involved in the present case. Under the said facts and circumstances, I feel that the only procedure which has to be followed is that the properties seized during investigation after abatement of the case, have to be released in favour of the applicants/claimants in accordance with law."
10. This Court, after relying upon the decision of the Hon'ble Apex Court in the case N.Madhavan v/s State of Kerala reported in (1979) 4 SCC 1, passed the above said order by releasing the properties in favour of the legal heirs of the deceased-accused. Here in this case, the enquiry is required only when there is a rival claim before the trial Court, wherein, there is no dispute that the respondents are legal heirs of the deceased- accused R.Rameshappa and there is no rival claim in 12 order to make an enquiry as required under Section 458 of Cr.P.C., as argued by the learned counsel for the petitioner. That apart, the petitioner also not filed any objection to the application seeking release. Though the learned counsel for the petitioner relied upon the judgment of the Kerala High Court and other High Courts but the Hon'ble Apex Court in latest judgment in the case of U. Subhadramma and others (supra) has dealt with identical case in the year 2011 and judgment delivered on 04/07/2016, where the Court cannot proceed to conduct trial against the dead person until holding him guilty and the Court cannot confiscate the property. Therefore, question of confiscation of property, denying releasing the property in favour of the legal heirs is not sustainable under law. The trial Court rightly allowed the application and released property to the respondents. The order under revision does not call for any interference and no illegality committed by the trial Court in releasing the property in favour of the 13 respondents. Hence, the revision petition is liable to be dismissed. Accordingly, the criminal revision petition is dismissed.
Sd/-
JUDGE SMJ