Karnataka High Court
Smt. Rajeshwari vs State By Lokayuktha Police on 28 February, 2013
Author: H.S.Kempanna
Bench: H.S. Kempanna
1
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BANGALORE
DATED THIS THE 28TH DAY OF FEBRUARY 2013
BEFORE
THE HON'BLE MR.JUSTICE H.S. KEMPANNA
CRIMINAL REVISION PETITION NO.563/2012
BETWEEN
Smt. Rajeshwari
W/o Late S.Kannagowdar
Aged about 41 years
R/o D.No.3664/6
8th Cross, M.C.C. 'B' Block
Davangere.
Now residing at:
Smt. Rajeshwari S.Kannagouder
W/o Late Shivanagouda Kannagouder
Aged about 41 years
Plot No.25, 4th Cross
Banashankari Badavane
Mruthunjaya Nagara, Ranebennuru
Haveri District.
... Petitioner
(By Smt.Manjula N.V., Adv. for
Sri. Revanna Bellary, Adv.)
AND:
State by Lokayuktha Police
Chitradurga.
Represented by State
2
Learned State P.P.
Bangalore. ... Respondent
(By Smt. T.M.Gayathri, SPP)
This revision petition is filed under Section 397
r/w. Section 401 of Cr.P.C. praying to set aside the
orders dated 25.04.2012 passed in Spl. Case (PCA)
No.11/2011 on the file of the Prl. District & Sessions
Judge, Chitradurga and allow this petition and to order
for allow the applications dated 25.03.2010 and
13.02.2010 filed u/s 457 of Cr.P.C. to release the
articles, cash and amounts in accounts and FDRs as
per PF No.9/2009 in favour of the petitioner on interim
custody and grant directions to the bankers of the
petitioner to lift the ban and to operate the accounts
and etc.,
This revision petition coming on for admission this
day, the Court made the following:-
ORDER
The petitioner in this petition has challenged the legality and correctness of the order of the Court below dismissing the application filed by her under Section 457 of Cr.P.C.. The said application had been filed by her praying for interim custody of certain items like cash, FDRs, passbooks of her bank accounts and some articles seized during the course of investigation in connection with Spl.C.(PCA) No.11/2011, which case 3 had been registered by the respondent - Lokayuktha Police against one S.T.Gowdar, who was working as Deputy Commissioner of Excise at the relevant point of time.
2. It is the case of the petitioner that she does not know S.T.Gowdar. He was introduced to her by her brother, Malatesh Virupakshappa Sidaganal of Kakola village. Her brother asked her to allow the accused to stay in her house as a paying guest as the accused wanted home-made food, as he was suffering from hypertension, diabetes, joint pain and other diseases. Therefore, the accused was staying as a guest in her house and all the articles that have been seized found in her house by the police belong to her. On account of the seizure of the cash, passbooks, she is unable to provide education to her son who has appeared for Pre- University examination and intending to join professional college. As the bank accounts have been seized at the instance of the Investigating Officer, she is 4 unable to operate those accounts. The Lokayuktha police have unnecessarily attempted to make a nexus of her with the accused with a ultimate goal of harassing her. She has no nexus of whatsoever with the accused S.T.Gowdar. He does not belong to her family at all. Though she has given complete explanation with regard to the items seized from the house, yet the police have not accepted her explanation. On the other hand, they have proceeded to seize the documents adverted to above.
3. It is also her case that her husband S.Kannagowdar was a landlord and a businessman. He had good source of income and whatever he had earned had been kept in her name before his death. He had given many items to her by obtaining receipts and the same have been produced by her. She also contended that she has obtained receipts for having sold vegetables grown in her land during the relevant period from 1997 to 2011 and has produced the same along with the 5 application. She also further contended one Virupakshappa Hanumappa Sidaganal executed a Will in her favour on 08.06.2001 bequeathing an extent of 2 acres 3 guntas of land. She is also running a beauty parlour and a Jari Stitching Work Training Centre. She had income from the said business also. Her brothers had executed gift deeds in her favour by giving cash to her and if at all the gift tax is to be paid, she is ready to pay the same. She has also produced an agreement of sale dated 30.01.2009 for having sold 3 acres 14 guntas of land situated in Sy.No.93/2B in favour of one Homanna by receiving an amount of Rs.7,00,000/- as advance sale consideration and that money was with her. The money that had been paid by her brothers and the mother were all invested by her in fixed deposits and therefore, all the amounts available in the FDRs seized in the case belong to her. In view of the same, the same be released in her favour for interim custody and she is prepared to abide by any condition. 6
4. The said application was opposed by the respondent - Lokayuktha police. The Lokayuktha police in their objections, interalia among other things contended, the applicant had no independent income of her own as claimed in the application. The documents that have been produced by her are fictitious and have been got-up for the purposes of the case. All the articles, cash, FD receipts and other belongings that has been seized were from the house where the petitioner was living with the accused S.T.Gowdar, as husband and wife. According to the Lokayuktha police, the applicant was not on cordial terms with her parents and she had married her husband S.Kannagowdar on 06.10.1990 against their wishes. The marriage of the applicant with S.Kannagowdar was a registered marriage. He died on 09.01.1997. Till then, the applicant was residing at Ranebennuru and then shifted her residence in the year 2006 at the time when the accused S.T.Gowdar was transferred from Haveri to 7 Davanagere. It was also contended that the applicant got her son admitted to Bapuji High School, Davanagere and at that time while mentioning the occupation of her son's father, she has mentioned the same as Excise Deputy Commissioner and the address as Office of the Deputy Commissioner of Excise, Davanagere. Even at the time she has opened the bank accounts, she has given the name of her husband as that of S.T.Gowdar. Likewise, she has also given the name of her husband as S.T.Gowdar while taking telephone connection and L.P. Gas connection. Therefore, according to them, the accused S.T.Gowdar has amassed wealth in benami name of the applicant. The case is registered against S.T.Gowdar under the provisions of the Prevention of Corruption Act under Section 13(1)(e) r/w 13(2). Therefore, they contended that as these articles which are sought for interim custody by the applicant do have a bearing with the case registered by them against 8 S.T.Gowdar, the application does not merit any consideration hence it be dismissed.
The learned Trial Judge on hearing the counsel for the petitioner and the respondent - Lokayuktha police, dismissed the application filed by the petitioner. Aggrieved by the said order, the petitioner is in revision before this Court.
5. The learned counsel appearing for the petitioner, vehemently contends, the articles that have been seized from the house of the petitioner which comprises of cash, FD receipts and passbooks of the accounts held by her have no nexus of whatsoever with Spl.C.(PCA). No.11/2011 registered by the respondent police. According to the learned counsel, she does not know S.T.Gowdar, who is accused in Spl.C.(PCA) No.11/2011. She has no nexus of whatsoever with him. She is not related to him. All the FD receipts, the amounts in bank accounts, cash, were all earned by her 9 on her own coupled with what she had been given by her late husband S.Kannagowdar. In support of the same, she has produced documents like, receipts, sale agreement, etc., Therefore, she contended the trial Judge without looking into these documents in its right perspective has rejected the application filed by her which cannot be sustained. Therefore, it be set aside and her application be allowed by ordering to release the items that have been sought for in her application.
6. Countering the submissions made by the learned counsel for the petitioner, the learned special Public Prosecutor appearing for the respondent - Lokayuktha police contended, all the articles that have been seized which comprises of cash, FD receipts, passbooks held by the petitioner have direct nexus with the disproportionate wealth acquired by the accused S.T.Gowdar. It was contended that at the time the raid was conducted, the accused S.T.Gowdar was residing with the petitioner in her house at Davanagere. All the 10 articles adverted to above have been seized from her residence at the time she was living with him. The investigation has revealed that she had no independent source of income to acquire all these items. It was also contended, the investigation has revealed that at the time the petitioner has admitted her son to the school at Davanagere and while obtaining telephone and gas connection, she has given her husband name as S.T.Gowdar, who is accused in Spl.C.(PCA) No.11/2011. Since the investigation has revealed that all these items which have been seized by the police from the house of the petitioner have direct nexus with the disproportionate assets acquired by S.T.Gowdar, the petitioner is not entitled for release of the same. She also further contended, on an earlier occasion when her application of the similar nature had been rejected by the trial Court, she had challenged the same before this Court in Crl.R.P.No.921/2011. This Court had set aside the order passed by the trial Court on 18.01.2012 11 with a direction to the trial Court to afford an opportunity to place relevant documents in support of her claim. Thereafter also the petitioner has not produced any relevant documents in support of her claim and the trial Judge on appreciating the documents that she has placed, has rightly rejected her application. Taking from any angle, the impugned order does not suffer from any infirmity calling for interference in this revision. Therefore, it be dismissed.
7. Having regard to the rival contentions, the material available on record, the point that arises for my consideration is:
'Whether the impugned order of the trial Court calls for any interference?'
8. A perusal of the records in the case would disclose that the respondent - police during the course of investigation of Spl.C.(PCA) No.11/2011, which case had been registered against one S.T.Gowdar, who was working as Deputy Commissioner of Excise at 12 Chitradurga have seized all these articles namely, cash, FD receipts, passbooks of the accounts held in the name of the petitioner from the house of the petitioner at Davanagere, where she was living with the accused S.T.Gowdar. It is the contention of the petitioner that all the articles seized in the case belong to her and the same have no nexus of whatsoever with S.T.Gowdar, the accused in the case. According to her, all the cash, FD receipts, amounts in the passbooks of the accounts which she was holding are her personal belongings which she has earned on her own by receiving the same from her late husband, by sale of vegetables and through the gifts received from her brothers and by entering into an agreement to sell one of the lands bearing Sy.No.93/2B measuring 3 acres 14 guntas in favour of one Homanna. It is also her case that the accused never lived with her. On the other hand, it is her case that she had accommodated him in her house on the request of her brother as a paying guest. The 13 Investigating Agency has collected material to show that this very petitioner has given her husband's name as S.T.Gowdar at the time she admitted her son to Bapuji School at Davanagere. Further, the papers also reveal that she has obtained LP Gas connection and at that time also she has mentioned her husband's name as S.T.Gowdar, who is accused in Spl.C.(PCA) No.11/2011. Further, the telephone connection has been obtained by the accused to be installed in the house of the accused. These materials would go to show that this petitioner was living with S.T.Gowdar at Davanagere in her house. Admittedly, she was a widow at the time of the raid. Though it is her case that her husband had given money which had been kept in FD receipts, nothing is placed on record to show that these were deposited during the life time of her husband. No documents are also placed to show that she is running any beauty parlour to augment her income. On the other hand, material collected by the investigating agency would 14 reveal, all these items which have been seized in the case have been made in the benami name of the petitioner by S.T.Gowdar. It is also brought to the notice of the Court that the accused had also preferred similar application before the trial Court for release of certain property seized from his possession. The said application had come to be rejected and the order of rejection has been affirmed by this Court. Since the material on record reveals that there is nexus between the assets found in the house of the petitioner with that of the accused S.T.Gowdar, the learned trial Judge, in my view, has not committed any error in rejecting the application filed by her. Accordingly, I do not find any infirmity or illegality in the order of the trial Court calling for any interference in this revision petition. Hence, it is dismissed.
Sd/-
JUDGE ca