Karnataka High Court
Sri. Raju. S vs The State Of Karnataka on 4 June, 2025
Author: S.R.Krishna Kumar
Bench: S.R.Krishna Kumar
-1-
NC: 2025:KHC:18977
WP No. 13956 of 2025
HC-KAR
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU
DATED THIS THE 4TH DAY OF JUNE, 2025
BEFORE
THE HON'BLE MR JUSTICE S.R.KRISHNA KUMAR
WRIT PETITION NO.13956 OF 2025 (GM-RES)
BETWEEN:
SRI. RAJU S.,
S/O GOPALAREDDY,
AGED ABOUT 45 YEARS,
R/AT NO.17, 3RD CROSS,
3RD MAIN, BEML LAYOUT,
R.R.NAGARA, BENGALURU - 560 098
...PETITIONER
(BY SRI. KARTHIK KUMAR K., ADVOCATE)
AND:
1. THE STATE OF KARNATAKA
BY THALAGHATTAPURA P.S.,
BENGALURU,
REPRESENTED BY STATE PUBLIC PROSECUTOR,
HIGH COURT COMPLEX, BENGALURU - 560 001
Digitally
signed by 2. SRI. NAGARAJU R.
CHANDANA POLICE SUB-INSPECTOR,
BM
Location:
AGED ABOUT 33 YEARS,
High Court of THALAGHATTAPURA POLICE STATION,
Karnataka
THALAGHATTAPURA, KANAKAPURA ROAD,
BENGALURU - 560 109
...RESPONDENTS
(BY SMT. SOWMYA R., HCGP)
THIS WP IS FILED UNDER ARTICLES 226 AND 227 OF THE
CONSTITUTION OF INDIA R/W SECTION 482 OF THE CODE OF
CRIMINAL PROCEDURE PRAYING TO SET ASIDE THE ORDER
DATED 02.01.2024 PASSED BY THE LEARNED II ACJM.,
BENGALURU IN C.C.NO.8477/2023 VIDE ANNEXURE-C AND TO
RELEASE THE AMOUNT OF RS.5,54,400/- (RUPEES FIVE LAKHS
FIFTY FOUR THOUSAND FOUR HUNDRED ONLY) IN FAVOUR OF
-2-
NC: 2025:KHC:18977
WP No. 13956 of 2025
HC-KAR
THE PETITIONER, WHICH WAS SEIZED UNDER PF NO.42/2023
DATED 26.03.2023.
THIS PETITION, COMING ON FOR PRELIMINARY HEARING,
THIS DAY, ORDER WAS MADE THEREIN AS UNDER:
CORAM: HON'BLE MR JUSTICE S.R.KRISHNA KUMAR
ORAL ORDER
In this petition, petitioner seeks the following reliefs:
"(a) Issue a writ of certiorari or other appropriate writ or order seeking to set aside the order dated 02.01.2024 passed by learned II ACJM, Bengaluru, in C.C.No.8477/2023 vide Annexure - C and to release the amount of Rs.5,54,400/- (Rupees five lakhs fifty four thousand four hundred only) in favour of the petitioner, which was seized under PF No.42/2023 dated 26.03.2023.
(b) Pass such other order/s as this Hon'ble Court deem fit under the facts and circumstances of the case, in the interest of justice."
2. Heard learned counsel for the petitioner and learned HCGP for the respondents and perused the material on record.
3. A perusal of the material on record will indicate that pursuant to the complaint dated 26.03.2023 lodged by the respondent - police, the learned Magistrate granted permission for investigation and FIR in Crime No.85/2023 was registered against -3- NC: 2025:KHC:18977 WP No. 13956 of 2025 HC-KAR the petitioner pursuant to which, charge sheet was also filed by the respondent - police on 05.07.2023, which is pending in C.C.No.8477/2023. In the said proceedings, petitioner filed an application under Sections 451 and 457 Cr.P.C. seeking release of a sum of Rs.5,54,400/- by way of cash seized from the petitioner under PF No.42/2023 dated 26.03.2023. The said application having been opposed by the respondent, the Trial Court proceeded to pass the impugned order rejecting application, assailing the said impugned order and seeking allowing of the application filed by the petitioner by placing reliance upon the judgment of this Court in Kiran Kumar A.S., and another Vs. State of Karnataka and another - Crl.P.No.3873/2023 dated 05.06.2023, petitioner is before this Court by way of the present petition.
4. Per contra, learned counsel for the respondent submits that there is no merit in the petition and that the same is liable to be dismissed.
5. As rightly contended by learned counsel for the petitioner, respondent - police would not be entitled to retain the seized cash for more than a period of 15 days or one month and -4- NC: 2025:KHC:18977 WP No. 13956 of 2025 HC-KAR later it should be released and interim custody handed over either to the victim or the complainant.
6. In Kiran Kumar's case supra, the Co-ordinate Bench of this Court has held as under:
"The petitioners are before this Court seeking the following prayers:
"i. To set aside the order dated 28.04.2023 passed by the Hon'ble Metropolitan Magistrate Traffic Court-2 at Bengaluru in Crime No.84/2023 registered by the Amruthahally P.S., for offence P/U/S 98 of Karnataka Police Act, 1963.
ii. Consequently allow the application filed by the petitioners/applicants under Section 451 r/w 457 of Cr.P.C and direct the respondent police to release the amount which was seized and subjected in the PF No.40/2023 dated 27.03.2023 an amount of Rs.10,36,000/-(Rupees Ten Lakhs Thirty Six Thousand Only) to the petitioners for interim custody and bonafide use on such terms and conditions in the ends of justice."
2. Heard Sri. Sunil Kumar.S., learned counsel appearing for the petitioners, Smt. K.P.Yashoda., learned High Court Government Pleader appearing for respondent No.1 and have perused the material on record.
3. Petitioner Nos.1 and 2 are accused Nos.1 and 2 in Crime No.84/2023, registered for an offence punishable under Section 98 of the Karnataka Police Act, 1963. After registration of -5- NC: 2025:KHC:18977 WP No. 13956 of 2025 HC-KAR the crime, the police have seized an amount of Rs.10,36,000/- from the hands of the petitioners. After the said seizure, the petitioners move an application under Sections 451 and Section 457 of the Cr.P.C. before the learned Magistrate seeking release of the amount, so seized by the police. The concerned Court in terms of the impugned order has rejected the application, so filed seeking release of the amount. It is this order that drives the petitioners to this Court in the subject petition.
4. Learned counsel appearing for the petitioners submits that the amount so seized cannot be held by the prosecution beyond 15 days is the law laid down by the Apex Court SUNDERBHAI AMBALAL DESAI V. STATE OF GUJARAT reported in (2002) 10 SCC 283 and therefore seeks release of the said amount subject to any condition that would be imposed upon the petitioners by this Court.
5. Learned High Court Government Pleader would though seek to refute the submissions would admit the position of law. The issue now lies in a narrow compass, as to whether the order of the concerned Court rejecting the application filed under Section 451 read with Section 457 of the Cr.P.C. is tenable in law.
6. The afore-narrated facts are not in dispute and requires no reiteration. The issue in the lis need not detain this Court for long or delve deep into the matter as the Apex Court in the case of SUNDERBHAI AMBALAL DESAI V. STATE OF GUJARAT reported in (2002) 10 SCC 283, has held as follows:
"7. In our view, the powers under Section 451 CrPC should be exercised expeditiously and judiciously. It would serve various purposes, namely:
-6-NC: 2025:KHC:18977 WP No. 13956 of 2025 HC-KAR
1. owner of the article would not suffer because of its remaining unused or by its misappropriation;
2. court or the police would not be required to keep the article in safe custody;
3. if the proper panchnama before handing over possession of the article is prepared, that can be used in evidence instead of its production before the court during the trial. If necessary, evidence could also be recorded describing the nature of the property in detail; and
4. this jurisdiction of the court to record evidence should be exercised promptly so that there may not be further chance of tampering with the articles.
11. With regard to valuable articles, such as, golden or silver ornaments or articles studded with precious stones, it is submitted that it is of no use to keep such articles in police custody for years till the trial is over. In our view, this submission requires to be accepted. In such cases, the Magistrate should pass appropriate orders as contemplated under Section 451 CrPC at the earliest.
12. For this purpose, if material on record indicates that such articles belong to the complainant at whose house theft, robbery or dacoity has taken place, then seized articles be handed over to the complainant after:
(1) preparing detailed proper panchnama of such articles;-7-
NC: 2025:KHC:18977 WP No. 13956 of 2025 HC-KAR (2) taking photographs of such articles and a bond that such articles would be produced if required at the time of trial; and (3) after taking proper security.
13. For this purpose, the court may follow the procedure of recording such evidence, as it thinks necessary, as provided under Section 451 CrPC. The bond and security should be taken so as to prevent the evidence being lost, altered or destroyed. The court should see that photographs of such articles are attested or countersigned by the complainant, accused as well as by the person to whom the custody is handed over. Still however, it would be the function of the court under Section 451 CrPC to impose any other appropriate condition.
21. However, these powers are to be exercised by the Magistrate concerned. We hope and trust that the Magistrate concerned would take immediate action for seeing that powers under Section 451 CrPC are properly and promptly exercised and articles are not kept for a long time at the police station, in any case, for not more than fifteen days to one month. This object can also be achieved if there is proper supervision by the Registry of the High Court concerned in seeing that the rules framed by the High Court with regard to such articles are implemented properly."
(emphasis supplied) -8- NC: 2025:KHC:18977 WP No. 13956 of 2025 HC-KAR Following the judgment of the Apex Court (supra), this Court in the case of Criminal Petition No.6356 OF 2021 disposed on 10.08.2022, has held as follows:
"8. xxxxx In the light of the judgment of the Apex Court in the afore-quoted case, that the currency notes that are seized, the maximum period that it could be held is 15 days or one month and later, it should be released and interim custody should be handed over to the victim/complainant.
9. If the order passed by the learned Magistrate is considered on the bedrock of principles laid down by the Apex Court in the aforesaid judgment, it would on the face of it, run foul, as the Court holds that there are no sufficient grounds made out by the petitioners for release of the amount and the gold ornaments."
In the light of the judgment rendered by the Apex Court in the case of SUNDERBHAI (supra), as followed by this Court in Crl.P.No.6356/2021 (supra), the currency notes that are seized, the maximum period that could be held is for 15 days or one month and later, it should be released and interim custody should be handed over to the victim/complainant. The order passed by the learned Magistrate is considered on the bedrock of principles laid down by the Apex Court in the aforesaid judgment, it would on the face of it, run foul, as the Court holds that there are no sufficient grounds made out by the petitioners for release of the amount.
7. For the aforesaid reasons, I pass the following:
ORDER
(i) Criminal Petition is allowed.-9-
NC: 2025:KHC:18977 WP No. 13956 of 2025 HC-KAR
(ii) The order dated 28.04.2023, passed by the Metropolitan Magistrate Traffic Court - 2, Bengaluru, on the application filed under Sections 451 and 457 of the Cr.P.C., stands quashed.
(iii) Interim custody of PF No.40/2023 is directed to be handed over to the petitioners, subject to the following conditions:
a. The prosecution shall prepare detailed and proper panchanama of the amount;
b. A bond equivalent to the cash amount seized, shall be executed before the concerned Court. c. Any deviation would be viewed seriously."
7. In view of the aforesaid facts and circumstances and the judgment of this Court in Kiran Kumar's case supra, the present petition also deserves to be allowed.
8. In the result, I pass the following:
ORDER
(i) The petition is hereby allowed.
(ii) The order dated 02.01.2024 passed in C.C.No.8477/2023 by the II Addl. Chief Judicial Magistrate, Bengaluru, on the application filed under Sections 451 and 457 of the Cr.P.C., stands quashed.
- 10 -
NC: 2025:KHC:18977 WP No. 13956 of 2025 HC-KAR
(iii) The interim custody of PF No.42/2023 is directed to be handed over to the petitioner, subject to the following conditions:
(a) The prosecution shall prepare detailed and proper panchanama of the amount;
(b) A bond equivalent to the cash amount seized shall be executed before the concerned Court.
(c) Any deviation would be viewed seriously.
Sd/-
(S.R.KRISHNA KUMAR) JUDGE SV List No.: 1 Sl No.: 69