Back
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BANGALORE
H. V.G. RAMESH, J.
Smt. UMA Appellant
versus
STATE BY SAMPANGIRAMANAGAR POLICE STATION, BAN GALORE Respondent
Criminal Petition No. 640 of 2006 connected with Criminal Petition No. 2964 of 2006.
Decided on 6th July, 2006
Cases Referred : 1973(1) Andh. WR 291, 1989(3) Crimes 301, 1989(3) Crimes 301, AIR 1964 SC 703.
Words and Phrases -Treasure -Means anything or of any value hidden in soil or anything affixed thereto.
Cases Referred : 1973(1) Andh. WR 291, 1989(3) Crimes 301, 1989(3) Crimes 301, AIR 1964 SC 703.
Criminal Procedure Code, 1973 -Section 482 -Inherent powers -Exercise of. [V. G. Ramesh, J.] - When an order has been passed illegally by the learned Magistrate, this Court exercising the inherent power suo motu can very well examine and pass appropriate orders. Even otherwise, although belatedly the prosecution approached this Court by filing a petition stating that no opportunity was given to the State at the time of disposal of the application, as per the Act, it is for the Deputy Commissioner to deal with the matter in accordance with law.
Cases Referred : 1973(1) Andh. WR 291, 1989(3) Crimes 301, 1989(3) Crimes 301, AIR 1964 SC 703.
Karnataka Treasure Trove Act, 1962 -Preamble -Salient features of the Act -Stated. [V. G. Ramesh, J.] - Whenever any treasure exceeding an amount of Rs.10/- hidden in the soil or anything affixed to land is found, the finder thereof and the owner and occupier of the place in which the treasure is found should inform the Deputy Commissioner of the finding of treasure. The Deputy Commissioner will report the particulars to the Government and the Director of Archaeology and the prescribed officer and publish a notification of the particulars and call upon the persons interested in the treasure to appear for an inquiry. The Deputy Commissioner will determine the treasure so hidden by any person within 100 years and if any person claims the treasure and such person establishes his right by suit in a Civil Court, such treasure will be given to him. But, if the Deputy Commissioner finds that the treasure was hidden for more than 100 years before it was found or no suit is instituted, the Deputy Commissioner may declare the treasure as ownerless. When such a declaration is made and no person has claimed the treasure as owner of the place in which it was found, it shall be given to the finder; if any person claims it as owner of the place, the treasure should be divided between the finder and the owner in equal shares, the finder not being entitled to more than one lakh of rupees, unless the parties agree to any other mode of division. The State Government may also acquire the treasure on payment of value of the material thereof together with one-fifth of such value.
Cases Referred : 1973(1) Andh. WR 291, 1989(3) Crimes 301, 1989(3) Crimes 301, AIR 1964 SC 703.
Karnataka Treasure Trove Act, 1962 -Chapter I (Sections 3 to 8) & Chapter III (Sections 9 to 15) -Powers of Magistrate -Precious stones hidden in wall found by coolie -Purchased by accused -Magistrate released property with condition -It is the Deputy Commissioner who has exclusive jurisdiction to deal with the property under the Act. [V. G. Ramesh, J.] - Learned Magistrate, in the usual course, has disposed of the matter. During pendency of the matter though applications under S.451 and 457 were filed, they were not considered and, on the ground that accused was not secured, the application filed by the petitioner and one more person Appaswamy was considered and were disposed of by imposing condition. Admittedly, when the property is considered to be a treasure within the definition of the word under the Act, the learned Magistrate ought not to have dealt with the same. Rather, he should have directed the parties to get a declaration from the Civil Court or he should have referred the matter to the Deputy Commissioner for disposal in accordance with law. As noted above, the Deputy Commissioner is the prescribed authority to find out whether the treasure was more than 100 years old or not and to deal with the same in accordance with law.
Cases Referred : 1973(1) Andh. WR 291, 1989(3) Crimes 301, 1989(3) Crimes 301, AIR 1964 SC 703.
Criminal Petition No. 640 of 2006 is filed seeking to relax the condition imposed by the Additional Chief Metropolitan Magistrate, Bangalore while ordering releasing of the seized property in favour of the petitioner and also to set aside the order dated 1-12-2005 Annexure-A in C.C. No. 5866 of 1990.
2. Criminal Petition No. 2964 of 2006 is filed by the State seeking to set aside the order dated 11-4-2005 in C.C. No. 5866 of 1990 passed by the Chief Metropolitan Magistrate, Bangalore allowing the application filed by the respondents under Sections 451 and 457 of the Cr. P.C.
3. One Smt. Uma W/o Chakravarthy a resident of Kolathllr in Dharmapuri District filed a petition. It is her case that the Srirampuram Police has registered a case against her husband in Crime. No. 428 of 1988 under Section 41(1)(d) read with Section 102 of the Cr.P.C. alleging that he was in possession of diamond stones without any proper documents for the possession of the same and they had seized 1246 stones of 84 carats 97 cents and 139 stones of assorted sizes, in all 1385 stones from the possession of the husband of the petitioner under a mahazar and recorded the seizure in PF 61/1988. Subsequently, the said diamond stones were transferred to the respondent-police i.e., Sampangiramanagar Police and the same was recorded in PF 104 of 1989 on 28-8-1989. According to the petitioner, the value of the said stones were assessed at Rs. 22,49,4001-.
4. Further, the Sampangiramanagar Police have also registered a case in Crime No. 529 of 1988 against one Raju for the offence punishable under Section 18 of the Karnataka Treasure Trove Act, 1962 on the complaint of one Mohammed Kasim. Another two cases have been registered against one Venkatesh and Appaswamy under Section 41(1)(d) read with Section 102 of the Cr. P.C. in Crime No. 177 of 1988.
5. According to the petitioner, there is no charge-sheet filed against her husband. On the other hand, all the four cases were transferred to the respondent-police and they have filed charge-sheet only under Section 18 of the Karnataka Treasure Trove Act ('Act' for short) in respect of Crime No. 177 of 1988 against the said Raju in C.C. No. 5866 of 1990 before the Chief Metropolitan Magistrate, Bangalore.
6. The complainant-Mohammed Kasim is said to be a contractor for demolition and construction' of buildings and one Krishnappa had purchas~q. a house in KH. Road, Bangalore and had entrusted the work of demolition to Mohammed Kasim. At the time of demolition, one worker by name Raju had found diamond stones in a soap box concealed in the wall who, having recovered the same, sold it to the husband of the petitioner and to one Appaswamy for a valuable sale price. On the complaint of Mohammed Kasim, the respondent-police registered a case against Raju and took up the matter for investigation. During investigation, the diamond stones seized from the possession of the husband of the petitioner were also transferred to the said case in C.C. No. 5866 of 1990. The husband of the petitioner had filed an application for the release of diamond stones seized from him. Learned Magistrate rejected the said application stating that the case was in the primary stage of investigation and ordered for depositing the same in the Treasury of the Deputy Commissioner, Bangalore for safe custody. Similar application filed by Appaswamy is also said to have been rejected. During pendency of the matter, the husband of the petitioner died. Petitioner filed an application as his Successor. Further, it is stated in the petition that the police after arresting the accused Raju and after investigation, have filed the charge-sheet. Although the said Raju was released on bail, he did not appear before the Court below and the case was prolonged and as the respondent-police failed to secure the accused before the Court and in view of the delay in the proceedings, petitioner filed an application for the release of the said diamond stones in her favour and the
SupremeToday
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
