Back
Karnataka High Court
State of Karnataka - Appellant
Versus
K.Krishna Gowda - Respondent
Decided On : 10-04-05
Crl.Revn.Petn. : 361 of 2003
CRIMINAL PROCEDURE CODE, 1973
Section 451 -Release of property -Specific case of Investigating Officer was that, accused has amassed wealth disproportionate to his income while in service - Sessions Court ordered to release cash seized - Held, Sessions Court committed an error apparent on face of records.
[N. S. Veerabhadraiah, J]: Case is registered for the offence punishable under Section 13(1)(e) read with Section 13(2) of the Prevention and Corruption Act, 1988 with a specific allegation that the accused in the course of his employment in various capacities has enmassed the wealth disproportionate to his known source of income, It IS in that context, the wealth in excess to his known source of income to the tune of Rs. 41,25,000/- is reported and the cash of Rs. 70,000/- as well as other valuables article s were seized. In that view of the matter neither Section 451 of Cr.P.C would have been made applicable to the facts of this case and thereby the Learned Sessions Judge has committed an error apparent on the face of the records. The order passed by the Learned Sessions Judge releasing the properties is wholly unreasonable or perverse and not based on any prosecution materials and suffers from serious illegality including ignorance of the provision of law for which the accused has been charged. Therefore, the release of cash is wholly untenable which is liable to be interfered with.
Release of property
PREVENTION OF CORRUPTION ACT, 1988 - Section 13 -Release of property - Specific case of Investigating Officer was that, accused has amassed wealth disproportionate to his income while in service - Sessions Court ordered to release cash seized - Held, Sessions Court committed an error apparent on face of records.
[N. S. Veerabhadraiah, J]: Case is registered for the offence punishable under Section 13(1)(e) read with Section 13(2) of the Prevention and Corruption Act, 1988 with a specific allegation that the accused in the course of his employment in various capacities has amassed the wealth disproportionate to his known source of income, It IS in that context, the wealth in excess to his known source of income to the tune of Rs. 41,25,000/- is reported and the cash of Rs. 70,000/- as well as other valuables article s were seized. In that view of the matter neither Section 451 of Cr.P.C would have been made applicable to the facts of this case and thereby the Learned Sessions Judge has committed an error apparent on the face of the records. The order passed by the Learned Sessions Judge releasing the properties is wholly unreasonable or perverse and not based on any prosecution materials and suffers from serious illegality including ignorance of the provision of law for which the accused has been charged. Therefore, the release of cash is wholly untenable which is liable to be interfered with.
Trial Procedure - Release of Property - Release of property -Report of Investigation Officer - Showed that accused had amassed wealth disproportionate to his known source of income - Consequent investigation was in progress - Release of cash - Held, Section 451 nor Section 457, Cr.P.C applies - Release of cash untenable, hence set aside.
Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988 - Section 13 (1) (e) -Release of property - Report of Investigation Officer - Showed that accused had amassed wealth disproportionate to his known source of income - Consequent investigation was in progress - Release of cash - Held, Section 451 nor Section 457, Cr.P.C applies - Release of cash untenable, hence set aside. [N. S. Veerabhadraiah, J.] Section 451 of Cr.P.C. enables the Court for disposal of properties pending trial whereas Section 457 of Cr.P.C. prescribed the procedure to be followed on seizure of the properties regarding its disposal. In the present case, when there is case registered for the offence punishable under Section 13(1)(e) read with Section 13(2) of the Prevention and Corruption Act, 1988 with a specific allegation that the accused in the course of his employment in various capacities has amassed the wealth disproportionate to his known source of income, It is in that context, the wealth in excess to his known source of income to the tune of Rs. 41,25,000/- is reported and the cash of Rs. 70,000/- as well as other valuables article s were seized. In that view of the matter neither Section 451 of Cr.P.C would have been made applicable to the facts of this case and thereby the Learned Sessions Judge has committed an error apparent on the face of the records. The order passed by the Learned Sessions Judge releasing the properties is wholly unreasonable or perverse and not based on any prosecution materials and suffers from serious illegality including ignorance of the provision of law.
Criminal Procedure Code, 1973 - Section 451 - Release of property - Cash and articles seized in the specitic context that accused had amassed wealth disproportionate to his known source of income - Section has no application - Release of cash untenable. See , Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988 - Section 13 (1) (e).
Release of property
CRIMINAL PROCEDURE CODE, 1973
Section 457 - Release of property -Order of Sessions Court -Sustainability. See, Section 451.
( 2 ) THE case of the Lokayuktha Police is as follows : on a report of Sri B. Lokesh, Police Inspector, Police Wing, Karnataka Lokayuktha, kolar a case was registered in Crime No. 3/ 2001 for the offence punishable under Section 13 (l) (e) read with Section 13 (2) of the prevention of Corruption Act, 1988 against the accused Sri K. Krishna Gowda, Supervisor, DCC Bank, Kolar District alleging that in between 16-7-1975 and 27-3-2001 while working at Bangarpet, Malur and KGF, worked as attender at Bangarpet and promoted as Supervisor and worked at Malur and KGF, DCC Bank during various periods and acquired properties disproportionate to his known source of income to the extent of Rs. 41,25,000. 00. On filing of the fir, they seized various items of properties like gold, silver and other articles and also the cash of Rs. 70,000. 00 as per Mahazar dated 28-3-2001. The seized properties were subjected to the property column along with the report and found exess assets to the tune of Rs. 41,25,000. 00. While the investigation is in progress, accused K. Krishna gowda filed an application under Sections 451 and 457 of Code of Criminal Procedure to release the cash of Rs. 70,000. 00 seized under Mahazar dated 28-3-2001. The learned Sessions Judge by an order dated 30-10-2002 ordered for release of cash of rs. 70,000. 00 seized from the possession of the accused in Crime No. 3/2001 of lokayuktha Police on his executing a bond of Rs. 75,000. 00. It is this order, which is questioned in the present Criminal Revision petition.
( 3 ) LEARNED High Court Government pleader Sri. C. Ramakrishna, vehemently contended that when the Lokayuktha Police have registered a case against the accused - K. Krishna Gowda for the offence punishable under Section 13 (l) (e) read with section 13 (2) of the Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988 having seized the valuable properties and cash to the tune of rs. 70,000. 00 that too at the stage of investigation, releasing the seized amount of rs. 70,000. 00 by invoking the provisions of sections 451 and 457, Cr. P. C. are erroneous and untenable. He also submitted that the learned Sessions Judge has ignored the provision of law, though the accused has been specifically charged for amassing the wealth disproportionate to his known source of income, the order has been passed in a casual and capricious manner. Therefore, prayed to set aside the order and to direct the accused to remit back the amount to the custody of the Court.
( 4 ) ON the other hand, respondent-accused Sri K. Krishna Gowda files a memo duly signed which reads as follows :"that the State has preferred this petition against the order passed by the learned prl. Sessions Judge, Kolar, in releasing the cash of Rs. 70,000/- to me in Crime No. 3/ 2001 of Lokayuktha Police, Kolar. that the said amount has been seized from my house and I do not dispute the said recovery. I got the cash released to celebrate my daughter's marriage. I am ready to offer bank guarantee to the said amount within three months from this date, in the interest of justice. "
( 5 ) IN light of the above submissions, the point for consideration that arises : "whether the learned Sessions Judge is justified in ordering to release the seized amount of Rs. 70,000/- in favour of the accused? What Orders"
( 6 ) SECTION 451 of Cr. P. C. enables the court for disposal of property pending trial in certain cases, which reads as follows :"order for custody and disposal of property pending trial in certain cases - When any property is produced before any Criminal Court during any inquiry or trial, the court may make such order as it thinks fit for the proper custody of such a property pending the conclusion of
An indispensable Tool for Legal Professionals, Endorsed by Various High Court and Judicial Officers
Please visit our Training & Support
Center or Contact Us for assistance
Scan Me!
India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!
For Daily Legal Updates, Join us on :
Back to top
