Karnataka High Court
Sri Abdul Kareem Telgi @ Kareem Lala @ ... vs The State Of Karnataka on 12 July, 2017
Bench: Ravi Malimath, John Michael Cunha
1
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU
ON THE 12TH DAY OF JULY, 2017
BEFORE
THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE RAVI MALIMATH
AND
THE HON'BLE MR.JUSTICE JOHN MICHAEL CUNHA
CRIMINAL APPEAL NO.360 OF 2010
BETWEEN:
SRI ABDUL KAREEM TELGI
@ KAREEM LALA @ LALA @ TELGI A.K.
S/O LAD SAB TELGI,
AGED ABOUT 50 YEARS,
RESIDING AT NO.5, 1ST FLOOR,
SHIRIN MANZIL, WALTON ROAD,
COLOBA, MUMBAI. ... APPELLANT
(BY SRI M.T.NANAIAH, SENIOR ADVOCATE A/W
SRI SUBRAMANYA B.N., ADVOCATE)
AND:
THE STATE OF KARNATAKA
UPPARPET POLICE STATION,
BENGALURU,
THROUGH CENTRAL BUREAU
OF INVESTIGATION. ... RESPONDENT
(BY SRI P.PRASANNA KUMAR, SPL.PP)
2
THIS CRL.A IS FILED UNDER SECTION 454 OF
CR.P.C., PRAYING TO SET ASIDE THE ORDER DATED
10/17.02.2010 PASSED BY THE SPL.JUDGE, 35TH ADDL.
CITY CIVIL AND S.J., BENGALURU IN S.C.NO.430 OF 2002,
DIRECTING THE MOS 522, 523, 524, 525, 526 AND 527
BE ORDERED TO BE CONFISCATED TO THE STATE AND
DIRECT THE SAME TO BE RETURNED TO THE
APPELLANT/ACCUSED NO.13.
*****
THIS CRL.A. COMING ON FOR HEARING THIS DAY,
RAVI MALIMATH J., DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING:
JUDGMENT
This appeal is filed by accused no.13 seeking to set aside the order dated 10.02.2010 and for a direction that MOs 522, 523, 524, 525, 526 and 527, which were ordered to be confiscated to the State may be directed to be returned to him.
2. Sri.M.T.Nanaiah, learned Senior Advocate, appearing for the appellant submits that by an order dated 10.02.2010, passed in S.C.No.430 of 2002, by the Special Judge, 35th Additional City Civil and Sessions Judge, Bengaluru, on the conviction of the appellant, the aforesaid material objects were ordered to be confiscated. Aggrieved 3 by the order of conviction and sentence, the appellant has filed Criminal Appeal No.330 of 2010, which will be considered separately on merits. However, so far as the present appeal is concerned, the same is restricted to the release of the confiscated material objects.
3. The learned Senior Counsel, contends that there is no evidence to indicate that the said material objects seized at the behest of the appellant has any nexus with the charge of printing or selling of counterfeit stamps. That until and unless the prosecution establishes that the material objects that have been confiscated are in relation to the charges leveled against the appellant, the appellant is entitled for release of the said items.
4. On the other hand, Shri.P.Prasanna Kumar, learned Special Public Prosecutor, disputes the same. He contends that the primary charge among 296 charges, against the appellant was of the manufacture and sale of counterfeit stamps. That the material objects that have 4 been confiscated, are as a result of the offences committed by the appellant. Hence, he pleads that the confiscated material objects cannot be released to the appellant.
5. Heard learned counsels.
6. The evidence of PW-308 the Investigating Officer of the Upparpet Police Station, would indicate that the material objects, as narrated herein above, were seized from the custody of the appellant. The trial judge while considering the question of confiscation looked into the various material and evidence on record and held at para-517 of the judgment as follows:
"517. M.O.522 is an amount of Rs.5,00,000- 00 recovered from the accused No.13/Abdul Kareem Telgi when he was apprehended at Ajmir on 7.11.2001. It is the case of the prosecution that on 7.11.2001, P.W.308/H.J.Mariswamy Gowda, the then Police Inspector, Upparpet Police Station, Bengaluru City apprehended the accused No.13/Abdul Kareem Telgi at Hotel Regency, 5 Delhi Gate Ajmir along with the said amount of Rs.5,00,000-00 marked as M.O.522 kept in M.O.521 brown colour brief case and it is also stated that at that time, M.O.523 Sony Moving Hand Camera with charger, M.O.524 one gold colour pen, M.O.525 one gold colour watch, M.O.526 one chain resembling gold chain, M.O.527 one ring with white stone and M.Os.528 and 529 two Samsung Mobiles were recovered from the possession of this accused No.13 under Ex.P.1112/Mahazar and subjected to PF No.201 of 2001. The fact of above seizure of the article Nos.521 to 529 is not disputed by the accused No.13. In only statement under Section 313 Cr.P.C. came with contention that those articles belongs to him were produced at Darga Police Station, Ajmir. The evidence of P.W.308/H.J.Mariswamy Gowda clearly forthcoming that those articles seized from the accused No.13/Abdul Kareem Telgi. The background of this case is considered is made out clear that this accused No.13 by way of printing and marketing of counterfeit stamps, stamp papers and embossing/franking of a document of various 6 firms and institutions during the year 1996- 2000 in, Bengaluru in the name of M/s.Sri Sai and other fictitious firm derived huge amount and I have discussed in this regard at length while considering the overtact of this accused No.13 and as well as on considering the criminal conspiracy of the accused Nos.1 to 19 and 22. It is to be stated here that the word property described under Section 452 Cr.P.C. is not limited only to the property regarding which an offence has been committed. The term property means not only the property in its original form but also that into which it is converted or which it is exchanged. The said Sub Section 5 of Section 452 Cr.P.C is made out very clear that anything acquired by way of conversation or exchange whether immediately or otherwise is also comes within the terms of property described under Section 452(1) of Cr.P.C. The manner in which this accused No.13 as a prime accused indulged in printing and marketing of counterfeit stamps etc., in the name of fictitious firm called as M/s.Sri Sai and derived several crores of amount as forthcoming from the evidence placed by the 7 prosecution by necessary implication, this court to hold that the amount of Rs.5,00,000- 00 marked as M.O.522 and other properties which are marked as M.O.521 and as well as M.Os 523 to 529 acquired by him are the properties by the use of the amount derived from the illegal business of counterfeit stamps involved in this case. Therefore, it is appropriate to confiscated M.Os 521 to 529 and it is forthcoming on record that the accused No.1 got release the M.O.523 Sony moving hand camera with charger through his advocate and it is ordered to issue notice to the accused No.13 who got release of the same requiring him to produce the same before this court forthwith for taking further action in the matter."
On considering the reasons assigned by the trial court, we do not find any ground to interfere with the order on confiscation.
7. The provisions of Section-452 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973, (for short 'Cr.P.C.'), are clear on 8 the said issue. Section-452(1) of Cr.P.C., is with regard to the disposal of the property at the conclusion of the trial. It postulates that whenever a trial is concluded, the court may order as it thinks fit, with regard to the disposal, by destruction, confiscation or delivery to any person claiming to be entitled to possession thereof or otherwise, of any property or document produced before it or in its custody, or regarding which, any offence appears to have been committed, or which has been used for commission of the said offence. Therefore, it is not necessary that the property that has been used for the commission of offence is that very property but also those actually used for the commission of the offence.
8. Sub-Section (5) of Section-452 of Cr.P.C., defines the term "property", which would include property regarding which an offence appears to have been committed, not only such property that has been originally in the possession or under control of any party, but also any such property, into or for which the same may have 9 been converted or exchanged, and anything acquired by such conversion or exchange, whether immediately or otherwise.
9. What has been confiscated is a sum of Rs.5,00,000/- as M.O.522, M.O.523 Sony moving Hand Camera with charger, M.O.524 one gold colour pen, M.O.525 one gold colour watch, M.O.526 one chain resembling gold chain, M.O.527 one ring with white stone and M.Os.528 and 529 two Samsung Mobiles. The Investigating Officer would indicate that the amount of Rs.5,00,000/- is used for the purpose of commission of the offence and the trial court was of the view that so far as the cash amount of Rs.5,00,000/- is concerned, the same is as a result of proceeds of sale of counterfeit stamps and also the material as mentioned hereinabove. The other material objects are hit by the provisions of Sub-section-5 of Section-452 of Cr.P.C.
10
10. In view of the provisions of Section-452 of Cr.P.C. and the contentions urged by the learned counsels, we find no ground for interference. The trial court was justified in ordering confiscation of the aforementioned material objects. The appeal is accordingly dismissed.
SD/- SD/-
JUDGE JUDGE
JJ