Karnataka High Court
Bapugowda S/O Sahebgowda Malipatil vs The State Of Karnataka on 23 July, 2014
Bench: B.S Patil, Rathnakala
1
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA
GULBARGA BENCH
DATED THIS THE 23RD DAY OF JULY 2014
PRESENT
THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE B.S.PATIL
AND
THE HON'BLE MRS. JUSTICE RATHNAKALA
CRIMINAL APPEAL NO.1140/2007
C/W CRIMINAL APPEAL NO.1673/2007
CRIMINAL REVISION PETITION 1074/2007
IN CRIMINAL APPEAL NO.1140/2007
BETWEEN:
1. BAPUGOWDA
S/O SAHEBGOWDA MALIPATIL
AGED ABOUT 58 YEARS
OCC: CONTRACTOR
R/O KUDALAGI
TQ.SHORAPUR, DIST.GULBARGA
2. KARABASAPPAGOWDA
S/O HANAMANTHRAYAGOWDA
MARADAGI, MAJOR
R/O TADAKAL, TQ.SHORAPUR
DIST.GULBARGA
... APPELLANTS
(BY SRI. SUBHASH MALLAPUR, ADV.)
AND:
1. THE STATE OF KARNATAKA
BY JEWARGI POLICE STATION
2
2. RAMAPPA
S/O LAXMAPPA NAIK
MAJOR, OCC: CONTRACTOR
R/O SHORAPUR, DIST.GULBARGA
. .. RESPONDENTS
(BY SRI S.S.ASPALLI, HCGP FOR R1
SRI BABURAO MANGANE, ADV. FOR R2)
THIS CRL.A.FILED UNDER SECTION 454 CR.P.C. BY THE
ADVOCATE FOR THE APPELLANT PRAYING TO SET ASIDE THE
ORDER DATED 1.6.2007 PASSED BY THE P.O. FTC V
GULBARGA IN S.C.NO.47/2005 IN SO FAR AS IT RELATES TO
ORDER OF RETURNING THE MOS.2 TO 4/CASH AT
RS.1,13,500/- TO ACCUSED NO.1/RAMAPPA LAXMAPPA NAIK
AND FURTHER BE PLEASED TO ORDER FOR RETURN OF
MOS.2 TO 4/CASH AT RS.1,13,500/- IN FAVOUR OF
APPELLANTS.
IN CRIMINAL APPEAL NO.1673/2007
BETWEEN:
STATE OF KARNATAKA
THROUGH JEWARGI
POLICE STATION ... APPELLANT
(BY SRI. S.S.ASPALLI, HCGP)
AND:
1. RAMAPPA S/O LAXMAPPA NAIK
AGE: 30 YEARS, OCC: CLASS 1
CONTRACTOR, R/O SHORAPUR
2. BASAVARAJ S/O SIDDAPPA NANDI
S/O AGE: 30 YEARS, OCC: AGRICULTURE
R/O MALGATTI
3
3. SAIBANNA S/O HANAMANT DEVATAKAL
AGE: 31 YEARS, OCC: AGRICULTURE
R/o DEVIKERI
4. DEVINDRAPPA
S/O BHIMARAYA BACHIMATH
AGE: 30 YEARS, OCC: AGRICULTURE
R/O SHAKAPUR, TQ.SURPUR
5. BASAVARAJ
S/O BHIMAPPA BIRADAR
AGE: 30 YEARS, OCC: AGRICULTURE
R/O SHAKAPUR, TQ.SURPUR
6. MAHIBOOB
S/O ISMAIL JAMADAR
AGE: 22 YEARS, OCC: DRIVER
R/O KADABAGERI, TQ.SURPUR
7. MONAPPA
S/O SHIVANNA MALIPATIL
AGE: 45 YEARS, OCC: COOLIE
R/O VANAGERI, TQ.SURPUR
8. KHAJA
S/O HASAN NADAF
AGE: 50 YEARS, OCC: COOLIE
R/O MUDNUR & HALUR
TQ.SURPUR
9. MALLAPPA
S/O BHIMAPPA GOGI
AGE: 60 YEARS
OCC: AGRICULTURE
R/O DEVIKERI, TQ.SURPUR
...RESPONDENTS
(BY SRI. BABURAO MANGANE, ADV.)
THIS CRL.A.FILED UNDER SECTION 378(1) & (3) OF
CR.P.C. BY THE STATE P.P. FOR THE STATE PRAYING THAT
THIS HON'BLE COURT MAY BE PLEASED TO GRANT LEAVE TO
4
FILE AN APPEAL AGAINST THE JUDGMENT DATED 1.6.2007 IN
S.C.NO.47/2005 ON THE FILE OF THE P.O., FTC-V GULBARGA
ACQUITTING THE RESPONDENT/ACCUSED FOR THE OFFENCE
P/U/S 143, 147, 341, 365, 323, 506, 384 AND 395 R/W SEC.149
OF IPC.
IN CRIMINAL REVISION PETITION NO.1074/2007
BETWEEN:
BAPUGOWDA
S/O SAHEBAGOWDA
AGED ABOUT 58 YEARS
OCC: CONTRACTOR
R/O KUDALAGI, TQ.SURAPUR
DIST.GULBARGA
... REVISION PETITIONER
(BY SRI. SUBHASH MALLAPUR, ADV.)
AND:
1. THE STATE OF KARNATAKA
2. RAMAPPA S/O LAXMAPPA NAIK
AGE: 30 YEARS, OCC: CLASS 1
CONTRACTOR, R/O SHORAPUR
3. BASAVARAJ S/O SIDDAPPA NANDI
AGE: 30 YEARS, OCC: AGRICULTURE
R/O MALAGATTI, TQ. SHORAPUR
4. SAIBANNA S/O HANAMANTH DEVATAKAL
AGE: 31 YEARS, OCC: AGRICULTURE
R/O DEVIKERI, TQ.SHORAPUR
5. DEVINDRAPPA S/O BHIMARAYA
BAJIMATTI, AGE: 26 YEARS
OCC: AGRICULTURE, R/O SHORAPUR
5
6. BASAVARAJ S/O BHIMANNA BIRADAR
AGE: 30 YEARS, OCC: AGRICULTURE
R/O SHAKAHAPUR, TQ.SHORAPUR
7. MAHIBOOB S/O ISMAIL JAMADAR
AGE: 22 YEARS, OCC: TATA SUMO DRIVER
NO.KA-33 M 3112 R/O KABADAGERI
8. MONAPPA S/O SHIVANNA MALIPATIL
AGE: 45 YEARS, OCC: COOLIE
R/O WAGANGERI.
9. KHAJA S/O HASAN NADAF
AGE: 50 YEARS, OCC: COOLIE
R/O MUDANOOR & HALUR
TQ.SHORAPUR
10. MALLAPPA S/O BHIMAPPA GOGI
AGE: 60 YEARS, OCC: AGRICULTURE
R/O DEVIKERI, TQ.SHORAPUR
... RESPONDENTS
(BY SRI S.S.ASPALLI, HCGP FOR R1
SRI BABURAO MANGANE, ADV. FOR R2 TO R10.)
THIS CRL.RP FILED UNDER SECTION 397 AND 401
CR.P.C.BY THE ADVOCATE FOR THE PETITIONER PRAYING
THAT THIS HON'BLE COURT MAY BE PLEASED TO SET ASIDE
THE IMPUGNED ORDER DATED 1.06.2007 PASSED BY THE P.O.
FTC-V, GULBARGA IN S.C.NO.47/2005.
THESE APPEALS AND REVISION PETITION HAVING BEEN
HEARD AND RESERVED FOR JUDGMENT ON 13.06.2014 AND
COMING ON FOR PRONOUNCEMENT OF JUDGMENT THIS DAY,
RATHNAKALA J., DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING:
6
JUDGMENT
These appeals and the Criminal Revision Petition arise out of the judgment of acquittal drawn by the Fast Track Court-V, Gulbarga in S.C.No.47/2005 dated 01.06.2007.
2. Criminal Appeal No.1673/2007 is a State appeal against the order of acquittal. The appellants/complainant Bapugouda and another victim of the incident Karabasappagouda in Criminal Appeal No.1140/2007 are aggrieved by the order of the Sessions Court whereby the cash amount of Rs.1,13,500/- (Mos. 2 to 4) has been ordered to be returned to the first accused. Criminal Revision Petition No.1047/2007 is by the complainant/Bapugouda assailing the acquittal of the accused persons.
3. Facts, stated briefly, are:
The P.S.I. of Jevargi Police Station registered a case against 9 accused persons /respondents for the 7 offence punishable under Sections 143, 147, 323, 341, 506, 365, 384 and 395 r/w section 149 of IPC on the complaint of Bapugouda/the petitioner of Criminal Revision Petition No.1074/2007.
4. The allegation of the prosecution was, on 21.07.2004 at 8:00 p.m. while complainant and his friend Karabasappagouda were proceeding in a vehicle Bullero KA-32-M-3499 driven by the driver, at 8:00 p.m. near Ambedkar circle, Jevargi, the accused persons who are inimical to the complainant came from behind in a TATA Sumo vehicle over took the Bullero vehicle and way laid accused persons. The first accused fisted the complainant, dragged him by holding his shirt snatched Rs.25,000/- from his packet and forcibly took his friend Karabasappagouda Tadkal in the TATA Sumo vehicle and returned towards Shahapur.
5. On registering the complaint/Ex.P1 at 10:00 p.m. the Investigating Officer got the complainant 8 treated in the Hospital at 11:50 p.m. sent F.I.R. at 11:00 p.m. to the Court. At the same time, the accused who had kidnapped Karabasappagouda took him to Vandurga cross, Shahapur road, snatched Rs.93,500/- from his pocket and released him. Karabasappagouda returned to his house from Vanadurga cross. He contacted his driver over his mobile phone and informed the matter. The Kembhavi police took him to Kembhavi Police Station. The PSI of Jevargi police took Karabasappagouda along with him to Jevargi police station. On the information forwarded by the said PSI, the CPI Shorapur apprehended 9 accused persons along with the TATA sumo vehicle and they were forwarded to Jevargi police station. Rs.1,13,500/- was seized from them and the vehicle used for the offence was also seized.
6. On filing of the charge sheet and committal of the case the Sessions Court framed charge for the 9 offences punishable under Sections 143, 147, 323, 341, 506, 365, 384 and 395 r/w section 149 of IPC. The accused pleaded not guilty and entered into trial.
7. The prosecution examined PWs.1 to 13, got marked the documents Exs.P1 to P10 and Mos.1 to 4 were marked. The accused during their 313 statements denied all incriminating evidence appearing in the statements of prosecution witnesses. The first accused examined himself as DW.2 and two witnesses as DWs.1 and 3 and produced documents Exs.R1 to R32.
8. After hearing both sides, the learned Trial Judge did not find merit in the case of the prosecution, accordingly acquitted the accused persons of all the charges. In respect of the seized cash amount of Rs.1,13,500/- it was ordered to be paid to accused No.1 from whom it was seized by the Investigating Officer. 10
9. Sri S.S.Aspalli, learned Government Pleader for the State submits that the complaint was proved by the complainant PW.1 who was the victim of the incident. Another victim of the incident PW.2 has also supported the evidence of PW.1. The medical evidence of the Doctor/PW.3 proves injuries sustained by PW.1.
10. The panch witnesses have supported the prosecution case about the spot mahazar, seizure of the vehicle and seizure of the cash amount of Rs.1,13,500/- from the possession of accused persons. The eye witness Siddappa/PW.6 has also supported the prosecution case. That apart an independent eye witness PW.9 has also supported the prosecution case. That being so, the Trial Court could not have rejected the prosecution case, out rightly only because there was some discrepancy in the description of currency notes seized and produced before the Court. Even otherwise minor discrepancies are sure to occur in the evidence of 11 natural witnesses. Though the prosecution had brought home the required material to prove the offence under Section 395 of IPC, the Sessions Court has rejected the case of the prosecution on surmise. Hence, the impugned judgment of acquittal may be set aside.
11. While contributing to the above submission, Sri Subhash Mallapur, learned counsel appearing for the respondents/complainant/Bapugouda (revision petitioner of Crl.R.P.1074/2007) and Karabasappagouda the appellants of Criminal Appeal No.1140/2007 submit that the total cash amount Mos.2 to 4 (Rs.1,13,500/-) which belonged to Bapugouda/PW.1 and Karabasappagouda/PW.2 is ordered to be returned to the first accused which has resulted in miscarriage of justice. In the usual course in the event of rival claim, it was incumbent on the Court to hold an enquiry and decide the ownership of the seized property thereon. Actually it was the cash 12 amount forcibly snatched from PWs.1 and 2. The defence evidence failed to prove that it is the property of the first accused. There was clinching evidence before the Trial Court from PWs.1, 2, 6 and 9 about the offence committed by the accused persons. Immediately after the incident, complaint was lodged by PW.1/Bapugouda: the panch witness to the seizure panchanama had clearly stated about seizure of the amount and approximate time to the incident. The evidence of the first accused/DW2 during the defence evidence was unreal, no prudent person would carry such huge money during the night hours which was drawn from the Bank in the morning. Undue credence was given about absence of clarification in the statements of PWs.1 and 2 about presence of currency notes of Rs.1,000/-denomination. This aspect ought to have been enquired by the Investigating Officer while he was in the witness box. The order passed about the disposal of the cash amount in favour of the first 13 accused without holding enquiry under section 452(3) of Cr.P.C. is illegal and same is liable to be set aside by directing to return Mos.2 to 4 in favour of the appellants/Bapugouda and Karabasappagouda.
12. After hearing both sides and on perusal of the impugned judgment with lower Court records, following points arise for our consideration:
1) Whether the Trial Court was justified in acquitting the accused persons from the charges alleged under Sections 143, 147, 341, 365, 323, 506, 384 and 395 r/w section 149 of IPC?
2) Whether the Trial Court was justified in ordering the return seized cash amount Mos.2 to 4 in favour of the first accused?
13. During the trial the prosecution examined firstly the complainant/Bapugouda as PW.1 the victim of the incident. PW.2/Karabasappagouda is another victim of the incident: PW/3 is the Doctor who treated 14 Bapugouda after the incident, in the Government Hospital at 11:00 p.m. PW.6/Siddappa is the driver of car bearing Reg.No.KA-32-M-3499 in which PWs.1 and 2 were travelling: said car belonged to PW.2. PW.7/Gopanna has met PW.2 after he was let free by the accused persons. PW.9/Gurushanthappa is an independent eye witness at the spot/Ambedkar circle, Jevargi. PW.7 turned hostile to the prosecution. During cross-examination of PW.9 it turned out that he is an acquaintance of Dawalathrayagouda/the brother of the complainant. He had accompanied Dawlathrayagouda to Jevargi police station on the next morning while Bapugouda was in Jevargi police station.
14. The learned Trial Judge disbelieved the evidence of this witness, on finding that he is an interested witness and since he had admitted that he had come to the Court on that day with the complainant/Bapugouda and others: his evidence was 15 not in full corroboration with that of complainant/Bapugouda, Karabasappagouda and jeep driver. The Court suspected him and also PW.7 as planted witnesses. Since Investigating Officer had chosen them out of 50-60 persons who had gathered at Ambedkar circle, Jevargi, at the time of the incident. Though it was shown that the incident had occurred at 8:00 p.m., complaint was lodged at 10:00 p.m. and dispatched to the jurisdictional Magistrate at 11:00 p.m. But the F.I.R. reached the Court on 22.7.2004 at 1:40 p.m. the endorsement of the jurisdictional Magistrate was found only on the F.I.R. but not on the complaint. Despite his previous acquaintance with the accused persons, the complainant had cited the name of first accused only in his complaint. But on the next day of the incident, his further statement was recorded with the names of accused 2 to 9 without showing how he came to know their names and identity.
16
15. Further the learned Trial Judge disbelieves the story of the prosecution as regards PW.2 happening to meet PW.7 on his way to Tadakal village accidentally and PW.2 divulging the incident with him. The version of the driver of the jeep/PW.6 who is an employee of PW.2 was not palatable to the learned Judge on finding that this witness during the incident escaped from the spot and joined the mob around there and was witnessing the incident. He had stated that the torn shirt/MO.1 belonging to the complainant was laying on the spot, contrarily to the spot mahazar averments to the effect that the shirt was in the TATA sumo vehicle bearing No.KA-33-M-3112 and the same was seized from the jeep in the police station premises at Jevargi. PW.4/Hanmantha and C.W.4/Amalappa are the common witnesses to Exs.P.4 to P.6 i.e. seizure panchanama of jeep and spot panchanama carried out at Ambedkar circle at Jevargi, seizure panchanama of the cash amount. Though PW.4 supported the 17 prosecution case it surfaced during his cross- examination that he is a close person of PW.5/Daulathrayagouda the brother of complainant and he expressed his ignorance as to from whose possession the police had seized the money and admitted that the amount was shown to him and the signature was taken on the panchnama. The other panchanama witness Amalappa was not brought before the Court. That prompted the Trial Court to reject mahazars Exs.P4 to 6.
16. The description of the currency notes mentioned in the seizure mahazar was not in corroboration to the oral evidence of PWs.1 and 2. Neither of them had stated that the accused robbed them of the cash amount with currency notes of Rs.1,000/- denomination. The MO.2 produced before the Court had 2 currency of notes as Rs.1,000/- denomination. But the seizure mahazar was silent on 18 this aspect leading to material contradiction. In the absence of clinching evidence from the side of prosecution that the currency notes really belonged to PWs.1 and 2, the Trial Court observed that accused No.1 being Class-I contractor, having bank account and having drawn the cash of Rs.1,50,000/- from the Bank on 21.07.2004, is the real owner of the cash amount.
17. There was no corroboration between the ocular and the medical evidence. Though much was stated about assault on PW.1, as per medical evidence PW.1 was found with a contusion over the upper part of back of the chest, abrasion on left lumber region, contusion over laterside of left eye. In the light of discrepancy showing up in the prosecution case the trial Court suspects that PW.1 managed to obtain medical certificate through a Doctor. The accused were caught by CPI of Shorapur police station, and brought to Kembhavi police station, but said C.P.I. who could 19 have been a material witness to the prosecution was not cited in the list of witnesses.
18. On overall scrutiny of the matter we cannot endorse the submission made on behalf of the prosecution, that despite there being overwhelming evidence accused are acquitted only on the ground of discrepancy in respect of denomination of the cash amount seized. We are of the considered opinion that the reasons assigned by the Trial Court are logical and judicious. It is not only the discrepancy in the denomination of the currency notes seized and produced before the Court, but there were notable breaches within the prosecution case that prompted learned Sessions Judge to acquit the accused persons. Hence, we do not want to interfere with the acquittal of the accused persons charged under Sections 143, 147, 323, 341, 506, 365, 384, 395 r/w section 149 of IPC. 20
19. After endorsing the judgment of acquittal now we will address justifiability of impugned order regarding disposal of cash amount.
20. In respect of claim made by PWs.1 and 2 for return of cash amount Sri Baburao Mangane, for the respondent/accused submits that it is the established procedure of law that on conclusion of trial and acquittal of the accused the seized property will be returned to the person from whom the property was seized particularly because the Court disbelieved the case of the prosecution and the respondents were able to establish by documentary proof, so also by the evidence of Bank Manager that accused No.1 is a Class- I contractor owning sufficient property had drawn Rs.1,50,000/- from the Bank on 21.07.2004. He urges that taking note of the same, the Trial Court has ordered return of the cash amount Mos.2 to 4 to first respondent/accused No.1 from whom it was seized and 21 the order does not call for interference and the Criminal Appeal No.1140/2007 is liable to be rejected.
21. On conclusion of the trial or enquiry the criminal Court is empowered to order the disposal of the property in accordance with the provisions of Section 452 of Cr.P.C., which reads as under:
"452. Order for disposal of property at conclusion of trial.
(1) When an inquiry or trial in any Criminal Court is concluded, the Court may make such order as it thinks fit for the disposal, by destruction, confiscation or delivery to any person claiming to be entitle 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 the commission of any offence.
(2) An order may be made under sub- section (1) for the delivery of any property to any person claiming to be entitled to the possession thereof, without any condition or on condition that he executes a bond, with or without sureties, to the satisfaction of the Court, engaging to restore such property to the Court if the order made under sub- section (1) is modified or set aside on appeal or revision.
(3) A Court of Session may, instead of itself making an order under sub- section (1), direct 22 the property to be delivered to the Chief Judicial Magistrate, who shall thereupon deal with it in the manner provided in sections 457, 458 and 459.
(4) Except where the property is livestock or is subject to speedy and natural decay, or where a bond has been executed in pursuance of subsection (2), an order made under sub- section (1) shall not be carried out for two months, or when an appeal is presented, until such appeal has been disposed of.
(5) In this section, the term" property" includes, in the case of property regarding which an offence appears to have been committed, not only such property as has been originally in the possession or under the control of any party, but also any property into or for which the same may have been converted or exchanged, and anything acquired by such conversion or exchange, whether immediately or otherwise.
22. It is on record that during crime stage both appellants/PWs.1 and 2 had filed application for release of amount and the first accused objected the application claiming that entire amount belongs to him and he had withdrawn the amount from the Bank. Based on that the application came to be rejected by the Court. The Sessions Court has ordered return of cash amount in 23 favour of first accused on the ground that he is a well to do person, class-I contractor and had drawn Rs.1,50,000/- from the Shorapur Urban Co-operative Bank Limited, Shorapur, which fact was established by the evidence of Manager of the Bank.
23. The Trial Court did not properly consider the matter while disposing of the property/Mos.2 to 4. The first accused in his evidence as DW.2 had stated to the effect that the amount (Mos.2 to 4) was taken by the police at Jevargi police station by bringing him from Shorapur,; that the police threatened him and forced him to shell down the cash amount. In the next breath his statement was ".......police did not leasson to my words they forced me to withdrawn cash from the Bank and hand over to them. On 21.7.2004 I withdrawn cash of Rs.1,50,000/- from U.G.Bank Shorapur to purchase some material for my contract business. On 21.7.2004 I had been to Shorapur at about 12 mid night I received call from the Dy.S.P.Shorapur to meet him, accordingly I rushed to meet Dy.S.P.Shorapur. When I had 24 been to Shorapur police the police in the P.S. I was question police about the money hold by me I have got money then they asked me to pay the money I refuse to pay the money without anything any reason. When I refused to pay the money the police forced me to handover the money and they threatened me due to presseror police I handover the cash to police then police Shorapur brought me to the Jewargi P.S. at 4:30 p.m....."
Reading between the lines of the above version of DW.2, in juxtaposition to the evidence of PWs.1 and 2 what actually transpired between the parties appears to have been suppressed. During the cross examination of PW.1 admission was taken to the effect that the first accused owns 30 acres of property, he is a member of TMC, President of Youth Congress and also Sevadala. During his evidence accused No.1 produced 21 RTCs to demonstrate that his family owns more than 250 acres of land etc... . If he was forced to draw the cash from his Bank on 21.7.2004 by the Investigating Officer why this aspect of the matter was not questioned during the cross-examination of the Investigating Officer/PW.11? 25 He being a worldly wise person (on his own showing) would not have budged to the police power to draw money from the Bank. It is not his case that when he was produced before the Magistrate immediately after his arrest, he had complained about forceful seizure of his personal cash amount.
24. It is for the person making claim over the seized property to establish that he came in possession in a lawful manner of the seized article from his custody and therefore entitled to get them back at the time of conclusion of the trial. Just because he is acquitted of the charges it does not mean that he was in lawful possession of the property seized. When accused claim that the property sought to be returned was seized from his possession he must prove that the property was owned by him. His version is he had drawn the amount from the Bank on 21.07.2004. On his own showing he has withdrawn Rs.1,50,000/- from the Bank. The 26 property seized is Rs.1,13,500/-. In our opinion, the Trial Court has not assigned prayer reasons for directing return of the property to the first accused.
25. At the same time PWs.1 and 2 also have failed to prove their legal entitlement to the property. As is clear from Section 452 of Cr.P.C. if the Sessions Court does not dispose the property at the conclusion of the trial it can forward the same to the Chief Judicial Magistrate to proceed further as contemplated under sub section (3). Whereupon, the Chief Judicial Magistrate will deal with the same as provided in Section 457, 458 and 459 of Cr.P.C. But, in the given circumstance though we are inclined to set aside that portion of the impugned judgment by which Mos.2 to 4 are returned to the second accused, we are not inclined to remand the case for further enquiry in respect of the property Mos.2 to 4 because, both the parties have already placed best possible evidence during the trial. 27 Any order for further enquiry in the matter at this length of time serves no purpose. Instead, in our considered opinion, ends of justice will be better served, if the property in question is confiscated to the State.
26. Accordingly Criminal Appeal 1140/2007 is allowed-in-part. The impugned judgment dated 01.06.2007 passed by the Fast Track Court-V, Gulbarga in S.C.No.47/2007, insofar it relates to return of cash amount (Mos.2 to 4) to the first accused/Ramappa S/o Laxmappa Naik, is hereby set aside and Mos.2 to 4 is are ordered to be confiscated to the State.
Criminal Appeal 1673/2007 and Criminal Revision Petition 1074/2007 are dismissed.
Sd/-
JUDGE Sd/-
JUDGE Sdu