Karnataka High Court
Smt. Gangubai W/O Late Maruti Bobati vs Karnataka Lokayukta on 2 April, 2013
Author: L.Narayana Swamy
Bench: L. Narayana Swamy
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA
CIRCUIT BENCH AT DHARWAD
DATED THIS THE 02ND DAY OF APRIL, 2013
BEFORE
THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE L. NARAYANA SWAMY
CRIMINAL PETITION NO.10765 OF 2012
c/w
CRIMINAL PETITIONS NO.10766, 10767, 10768
& CRIMINAL PETITON NO. 10769 OF 2012
Criminal Petition No.10765 of 2012
Between:
1. Smt. Gangubai
W/o Late Maruti Bobati
Age 58 years
Occ: Agriculture
R/o Tanaji Galli, Halliyal
Taluk: Halliyal
District; Karwar
2. Shrikant
S/o Late Maruti Bobati
age 32 years
Occ: Agriculture
R/o Tanaji Galli, Halliyal
Taluk: Halliyal
District: Karwar
...Petitioners
(by Shri V.M. Sheelavant, Advocate)
2
And:
1. Karnataka Lokayukta
represented by the Investigating Officer
Lokayukta Police Station,
Belgaum
2. Shri Narayan
S/o Late Maruti Bobati
Age 43 years
Occ: Agriculture
R/o Tanaji Galli, Halliyal
Taluk: Halliyal
District: Karwar
3. Shri Mahabaleshwar
S/o Late Maruti Bobati
age 55 years
Occ: Agriculture
R/o Tanaji Galli, Halliyal
Taluk: Halliyal
District: Karwar
4. Shri Sahadev Parashuram Bobate
Joint Director
Land Records Department
Belgaum
...Respondents
(by Shri M.B. Gundawade, Advocate for R1;
Shri M.C. Hukkeri, Advocate for R4;
R2 & R3 dispensed with)
This Criminal Petition is filed under Section 482 of CrPC
seeking to allow the petition and set aside the order dated
8.3.2012 passed by the IV Additional District & Sessions Judge
and Special Judge (PCA), Belgaum in Spl. case No.142 of 2011;
and etc.
3
Criminal Petition No.10766 of 2012
Between:
Miss Shridevi
D/o Sahadev Bobati
Age 31 years
R/o No.257, 3rd Main, 7th Main
Sadashivnagar
Belgaum
...Petitioner
(by Shri V.M. Sheelavant, Advocate)
And:
1. Karnataka Kokayukta
represented by the
Investigating Officer
Lokayukta Police Station
Belgaum
2. Shri Sahadev Parashuram Bobate
Joint Director
Land Records Department
Belgaum
...Respondents
(by Shri M.B. Gundawade, Advocate for R1;
R2 dispensed with)
This Criminal Petition is filed under Section 482 of CrPC
seeking to allow the petition and set aside the order dated
8.3.2012 passed by the IV Additional District & Sessions Judge
and Special Judge (PCA) Belgaum, in Special Case No.142 of
2011; and etc.
4
Criminal Petition No.10767 of 2012
Between:
Smt. Sharada
W/o Sahadev Bobati
Age major
Occ: Household
R/o Sadashivnagar
Belgaum
...Petitioner
(by Shri V.M. Sheelavant, Advocate)
And:
1. Karnataka Lokayukta
represented by the Investigating Officer
Lokayukta Police Station
Belgaum
2. Shri Sahadev Parashuram Bobate
Joint Director
Land Records Department
Belgaum
...Respondents
(by Shri M.B. Gundawade, Advocate for R1;
R2 dispensed with)
This Criminal Petition is filed under Section 482 of CrPC
seeking to allow the petition and set aside the order 08.03.3012
passed by the IV Additional District & Sessions Judge and Special
Judge (PCA), Belgaum in Special Case No.142 of 2011; and etc.
5
Criminal Petition No.10768 of 2012
Between:
Vinayak
S/o Sahadev Bobati
Age Major
Occ: Service
R/o: 257, 3rd Main, 7th Cross
Sadashivnagar
Belgaum
...Petitioner
(by Shri V.M. Sheelavant, Advocate)
And:
1. Karnataka Lokayukta
represented by the Investigating Officer
Lokayukta Police Station
Belgaum
2. Shri Sahadev Parashuram Bobate
Joint Director
Land Records Department
Belgaum
...Respondents
(by Shri M.B. Gundawade, Advocate for R1;
R2 dispensed with)
This Criminal Petition is filed under Section 482 of CrPC
seeking to allow the petition and set aside the order 08.03.3012
passed by the IV Additional District & Sessions Judge and Special
Judge (PCA), Belgaum in Special Case No.142 of 2011; and etc.
6
Criminal Petition No.10769 of 2012
Between:
Santoshkumar
S/o Sahadev Bobati
age 31 years
Occ: Service (Executive)
Enercon (Ind.) Ltd.
R/o: 257, 3rd Main, 7th Main
Sadashivanagar
Belgaum
...Petitioner
(by Shri V.M. Sheelavant, Advocate)
And:
1. Karnataka Lokayukta
represented by the Investigating Officer
Lokayukta Police Station
Belgaum
2. Shri Sahadev Parashuram Bobate
Joint Director
Land Records Department
Belgaum
...Respondents
(by Shri M.B. Gundawade, Advocate for R1;
R2 dispensed with)
This Criminal Petition is filed under Section 482 of CrPC
seeking to allow the petition and set aside the order 08.03.3012
passed by the IV Additional District & Sessions Judge and Special
Judge (PCA), Belgaum in Special Case No.142 of 2011; and etc.
These Criminal Petitions coming on for final hearing, this
day, the Court made the following:
7
ORDER
Respondent No.4 in Writ Petition No.10765 of 2012 is the only accused in all these matters. Petitioners are the relatives of the accused. Facts leading to the case are that the 1st respondent-Karnataka Lokayukta representing by its Investigating Officer at Belgaum have raided the office and residence of the said accused and seized the documents, materials and cash, jewels, etc. A case has been registered in No.142 of 2011 on the file of the District and Sessions Judge, Special Judge (PCA) Belgaum. Petitioner in Criminal Petition No.10765 of 2012 is the wife of the brother of the accused; petitioner in Writ Petition No.10766 of 2012 is the daughter of the accused; petitioner in Writ Petition No.10767 of 2012 is the wife of the accused; and the petitioners in Writ Petitions No.10768 and 10769 of 2012 are the sons of the accused. The prayer made by the petitioners in all these petitions is to set aside the order dated 8th March 2012 passed by the Court below. The petitioners have filed application before the Special Judge to release the amount, which was seized on raid, and also to 8 release the amount in deposit in various banks. It is contended that the amount in deposit in the banks is the compensation awarded on acquiring the land, which belong to the accused as well as the petitioners. The daughter of the accused has made a prayer that the education loan obtained for pursuing her studies was in the custody of her father and the same was also seized. The wife of the accused made a prayer to release the jewels, which were given to her by her parents. It is the case of the petitioners in Writ Petition No.10765 of 2012 that on filing the suit for partition, the same came to be decreed and from the date of decree, the brothers of the accused are residing separately and maintaining separate bank accounts. However, some of the documents, which were in the custody of the accused, have also been seized. In support of the same, the learned counsel for the petitioners produced copy of the cheque by which compensation has been awarded for acquisition of the land and bank receipts to prove the fact of maintaining separate accounts and also produced the partition deed. 9
2. The learned counsel appearing for the first respondent- Lokayukta submitted that all these materials, jewel and cash were seized from the premises of the accused. It is only after full trial, the first respondent would be in a position to make submission with regard to the entitlement of the family members, including the brother of the accused. The wife of the accused and her application for release of jewels have been allowed and it has been released in her favour. The matter is of the year 2008; investigation is over and charge-sheet is filed. The learned counsel further submits that instead of considering the case of the petitioners for releasing the amount, this Court below may be directed to dispose of the matter at an earliest date. With regard to the purpose of attachment, the learned counsel has relied on the Criminal Law Amendment Ordinance, 1944 and submits that the same was saved by Section 29 of the Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988.
3. Heard both the learned counsel appearing for the parties. On going through the materials on record and on the basis of the submission made by the petitioners' counsel, it looks 10 that Lokayukta have seized all the cash and materials found in possession of the accused and it is not proved that all the seized materials belong to the accused. The brother of the accused has maintained separate bank accounts since the date of decree of partition. The wife of the brother of the accused has also made a prayer for release of the amount in deposit since her husband died. The daughter of the accused seeks release of the amount seized on the ground that she raised the education loan for which she is entitled. On a plain understanding of the materials and submissions, it looks that as if Lokayukta have seized all the bank accounts and materials and cash which are all belonging to others and not of the accused, but the thing is, all the seized materials are in possession of the accused. In respect of the bank account maintained by the brother of the accused, it should not have been the subject matter of the seizure, but for immediate reference no other materials are available before this Court to take any decision in the matter. Hence, in my considerable opinion, it is a bit difficult to consider the case of all these petitioners, unless examining each and every document seized, material evidence and statement made in this regard. 11
4. In the facts and circumstances of the case, instead of considering the case of the petitioners without appreciating each and every individual document and materials, I deem it proper to dispose of the matter by directing the learned Sessions Judge to proceed with the case and pass appropriate order in accordance with law, within a reasonable time. The case is of the year 2008 and the accused has retired within a few days after the raid and the brother of the accused has died, and the compensation obtained on acquisition of the land has also been seized. If the accused has committed an offence, he has to be punished and not the brothers and sisters only because there is a prima facie evidence and materials. In this circumstance, and only for the reasons mentioned above, I direct the learned Sessions Judge, to take up the matter, if possible on day-to-day basis and dispose of the same, as expeditiously as possible, and not later than six months from the date of receipt of a copy of this order. Both, the prosecution as well as the petitioners herein, shall co-operate in the early disposal of the matter as directed above. If the matter is not concluded, liberty is reserved to the petitioners to file fresh petitions. 12
5. In terms of the above, the petitions stand disposed of.
SD/-
JUDGE lnn