Siddanna S/O Tippanna vs The State Of Karnataka on 6 December, 2021
3. The counsel for the petitioner vehemently
contended that the amount was seized from the house of
the petitioner herein and this petitioner has made the
claim that the said amount is his savings amount and
seizure is also contrary to the allegations made in the
complaint. The Special Judge failed to take note of the
fact that he being the lawful owner is entitled to the
impugned custody of the seized currency notes. The
4
counsel in support of his arguments relied upon the order
passed in CRL.R.P.No.2281/2013 connected with
CRL.R.P.No.2230/2013 and brought to notice of this Court
the paragraph 15 and so also discussion made in
paragraphs 16 to 22 and in paragraph 23, this Court
comes to the conclusion that even if the articles are
released to the accused, prosecution will not be impacted
adversely because seizure is on record and everything is
documented. Such documentary evidence is receivable
without even proof as envisaged under Section 294 of
Cr.P.C. and prosecution can certainly resort to this
provision and obtain consent of the accused to mark it in
evidence. Even if the accused is found guilty, he will be
liable to suffer sentence to forfeit the property or the
amount being the value of the articles in excess of the
known source of income and allowed the petition subject
to certain conditions. The counsel also relied upon the
judgment of this Court reported in 2019(1) KAR. L. J
823 between SMT. SHANTA ALIAS KAMLA vs STATE
OF KARNATAKA and brought to notice of this Court
5
discussions made in paragraphs 10 and 11 wherein
discussed the judgment of the Apex Court in the case of
SUNDERVHAI AMBALA DESAI vs STATE OF GUJARAT
reported in (2002)10 SCC 283 wherein the Apex Court
observed that there is need for expeditious and judicious
exercise of power under Section 451 of Cr.P.C. which
would serve various purposes and allowed the petition.