Karnataka High Court
Praveen vs State Of Karnataka on 25 July, 2018
Equivalent citations: AIRONLINE 2018 KAR 424
1
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU
DATED THIS THE 25TH DAY OF JULY, 2018
BEFORE
THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE N.K. SUDHINDRARAO
CRIMINAL APPEAL NO.1214/2018
BETWEEN:
PRAVEEN
S/O GIRI BHASKAR RAO
AGED ABOUT 33 YEARS
R/AT NO.21/22, F-1,
GIRINAGAR ENCLAVE
2ND STAGE, 14TH CROSS
GIRINAGAR, BANGALORE - 85. ... APPELLANT
(BY SRI R.NAGENDRA NAIK, ADV.)
AND:
STATE OF KARNATAKA
HEBBAL POLICE STATION
BANGALORE - 560 040
REPRESENTED BY ITS
STATE PUBLIC PROSECUTOR
HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA
BANGALORE - 01. ... RESPONDENT
(BY SRI K.P.YOGANNA, HCGP)
THIS CRIMINAL APPEAL IS FILED UNDER SECTION 454
OF Cr.P.C. PRAYING TO SET ASIDE THE ORDER DATED
03.04.2018 IN SPL.C.C.NO.363/2017, ON THE FILED OF THE
LXXI ADDITIONAL CITY CIVIL AND SESSION AT BANGALORE
AND ETC.
2
THIS CRL.A. COMING ON FOR ADMISSION THIS DAY,
THE COURT DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING:
JUDGMENT
Heard.
It is stated that a case came to be registered against the accused in Crime No.67/2017 for the offences punishable under Sections 341, 354(D) of I.P.C. Further, the accused- Praveen preferred a petition in Crl.P.No.8327/2017 before this Court seeking for quashing of registration of criminal case against him and the matter came to be compromised and the petition was allowed by this Court in Crl.P.No.8327/2017 dated 18.01.2018. It is stated that certain articles were seized from the custody of the accused therein who is appellant herein. The seized articles are mentioned hereunder:
i) One JIO wifi hotspot router IMEI No.911522604982752 containing one JIO sim card bearing No.7892226959 and IMSI No.89918610400024985559. 3
ii) One Samsung mobile phone bearing model no.SM-G930FD, 1) IMEI No.356905070982566/01 2) 356906070982564/01, SL No.RZ8H716V88L, Phone Number 9620755144.
iii) One HP PAVILION LAPTOP SL NO. 5CD63536H1, MODEL NO. 3168NGW and its charger.
2. It is submitted by Sri R. Nagendra Naik, the learned counsel for the appellant-accused that an application was filed under Section 452 of Code of Criminal Procedure on 27.01.2018 for release of scheduled items which was rejected by the learned Trial Judge on 03.04.2018 on the following grounds:
"As no documents are produced to show the ownership and entitlement to the said articles, this court finds that the applicant/accused has not made out grounds for allowing the application. Therefore, the application is rejected." 4
3. The learned counsel submits that he is entitled for the custody of the scheduled items as he is the owner and in addition to, the person from whom the items were seized and the same is evidenced by the mahazar drawn in this connection.
4. The Court takes note of the submission that schedule equipments were secured and purchased four years back from the date of seizer and the documents are not present with the appellant.
5. It is to be seen that loss or destruction of documents over the equipments which were owned and possessed does not lead to destruction of ownership or loss of title.
6. In the circumstance, when the appellant is clear and states that he does not have the documents of the scheduled items, it was open for the learned trial Judge to direct the appellant to file an affidavit and execute an 5 indemnity bond instead of rejecting the application and allowing the articles to get rusted and destroyed.
The impugned order dated 03.04.2018 is hereby set side.
Application filed under Section 452 deserved to be allowed. Accordingly allowed. It is hereby directed to return scheduled items to the appellant subject to he furnishing affidavit and executing indemnity bond for a sum of Rs.40,000/- and a surety for the similar amount.
Sd/-
JUDGE HR