The main legal point established in the judgment is the importance of expeditious and judicious exercise of powers under Section 451 Cr.P.C., emphasizing the prompt recording of evidence and imposition of appropriate conditions for the release of valuable articles and currency notes.

JUDGMENT

Shivashankar Amarannavar, J. - This revision petition has been filed challenging the order dated 01.02.2020 passed in Crl.Misc.No.151/2020 by the learned II Additional District and Sessions Judge, Belagavi, whereunder the petition filed by the petitioner under Section 451/457 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 (hereinafter referred to as the 'Cr.P.C.', for short) seeking release of a sum of Rs.3,95,100/- to his interim custody has been rejected.

2. The petitioner is accused No.1 in Crime No.130/19 of Harugeri Police Station registered for the offences punishable under Sections 465 and 420 of the Indian Penal Code (hereinafter referred to as the 'IPC', for short). The allegations made against the petitioner is that he used to prepare forged marks card in his printing press and on search in his printing press, an amount of Rs.3,95,100/- and other articles were found and the police seized them and subjected to PF No.73/2019 dated 01.10.2019. The revision petitioner filed a petition under Section 451/457 of Cr.P.C. seeking release of the said amount of Rs.3,95,100/- claiming that he is the owner of the said Indian currency notes and they are seized from his Om Shakti Printing Press, Harugeri, and that he had borrowed the said amount from one Sri. Ashok Satteppa Gudodagi, resident of Yalaparatti, Tq, Raibag, on the promise of repayment before December 2019 and he had also issued a post dated cheque bearing No.751626 for an amount of Rs.4,00,000/- drawn on RBL Bank Branch, Harugeri. The learned Sessions Judge has rejected the said application on the ground that the said amount has been collected by illegal means and that the case is under investigation.

3. Learned counsel appearing for the petitioner argued that the petitioner is entitled for release of an amount of Rs.3,95,100/- as he is the owner and from his possession the said amount has been seized and the said amount had been borrowed from Ashok Satteppa Gudodagi under agreement dated 07.09.2019 which is prior to the registration of the case against the petitioner. He further argued that the petitioner has to repay the said amount to the said Ashok Satteppa Gudodagi. He has placed reliance on the decision of the Hon'ble Apex Court in the case of Sunderbai Ambalal Desai v. State of Gujarat,2003 ILR(Kar) 2243.

4. The learned High Court Government Pleader argued that investigation is still under progress and the said amount is required for investigation and prayed to dismiss the revision petition.

5. On the allegation that the petitioner is preparing forged marks card, a case has been registered against him on 01.10.2019 for the offences punishable under Sections 465 and 420 of IPC and a sum of Rs.3,95,100/- has been seized from the printing press of the petitioner along with other articles and documents.

6. A copy of hand loan agreement dated 07.09.2019 reveal that the petitioner has borrowed a sum of Rs.4,00,000/- on 07.09.2019 from one Ashok Satteppa Gudodagi which is repayable before 06.12.2019. It is submission of the learned counsel for the petitioner that out of the said amount, a sum of Rs.3,95,100/- kept in the printing press of the petitioner has been seized by the police and the said amount belongs to the petitioner and it is no way connected to the crime in question.

7. Looking to the date of the hand loan agreement and the registration of the present case on 01.10.2019, immediately prior to the registration of the case, the petitioner had borrowed the said amount and the same was lying with him and belongs to him. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the said amount is required to be repaid to Ashok Satteppa Gudodagi. The learned Sessions Judge has not considered all these aspects even though it is pleaded in the application.

8. The Hon'ble Apex Court in the case of Sunderbai (supra) at paras 5 and 8 has observed as under:

" 5. In our view, the powers under Section 451 Cr.P.C. should be exercised expeditiously and judiciously. It would serve v