Back
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU
V. SRISHANANDA, J.
Shri Vishal Ramesh Khatwani, S/o. Ramesh Mayaram Khatwani - Petitioner
Versus
State of Karnataka, Represented by State Public Prosecutor & Ors. - Respondents
Crl.RP No.210 of 2024
Decided On : 04-10-2024
(A) Criminal Procedure Code, 1973 - Section 397 - Revision petition against the order of the VIII Additional Chief Metropolitan Magistrate rejecting the application for interim custody of seized electronic gadgets - The court emphasized the need for proper handling and preservation of seized properties, especially electronic items, to prevent loss of evidence and value - The learned Trial Magistrate's failure to consider the ownership documents and the value of the seized items led to miscarriage of justice. (Paras 1, 10, 28, 42, 49)
(B) The court issued general directions for the disposal and preservation of seized properties, highlighting the importance of detailed documentation and proper procedures to ensure the integrity of evidence. (Paras 46, 48)
Facts of the case:
The complainant, a manager of a mobile phone business, reported theft of electronic items worth Rs.35,00,000/- to Rs.40,00,000/- from her shop. The police seized the items from the accused but the complainant's application for interim custody was rejected.
Findings of Court:
The court allowed the revision petition, emphasizing the need for proper documentation and handling of seized items, and directed the release of the items to the complainant under certain conditions.
Issues: The main issues were the proper handling of seized properties, the complainant's ownership claims, and the judicial oversight in retaining seized items.
Ratio Decidendi: The court ruled that the learned Trial Magistrate failed to apply judicial scrutiny in retaining the seized items and did not adequately consider the complainant's ownership evidence.
Result: Revision petition allowed, interim custody granted with conditions.
ORDER :
V. Srishananda, J.
This revision petition is filed by the applicant under Section 397 Criminal Procedure Code, 1973 with the following prayer :
“(i) call for the Records connected with the Order dated 09.11.2023 made by the learned VIII Additional Chief Metropolitan Magistrate, in Crime No. 256/2023 and examine the same and set aside the Order dated 09.11.2023 and allow the application dated 03.11.2023.
(ii) and grant such other relief as this Hon'ble Court deems fit under the circumstances of the case including cost of this proceedings in the interest of Justices.”
2. Facts in brief which are utmost necessary for disposal of the revision petition are as under:
Upon the complaint lodged by Smt. Komathi, W/o Nagesh, a case came to be registered in Cr.No.256/2023 by Sanjay Nagar Police for the offence punishable under Section 380 and 457 IPC.
3. Gist of the complaint averments would reveal that complainant is resident of Vijayanagar and she is working as a manager since four years in a business concern, situated in new BEL road, in the name and style of ‘Gadgets club’ dealing with mobile telephones and its accessories and such other electronic equipments gadgets.
4. It is her case that on 28.09.2023 at about 8.15 p.m., she closed the shop and went to her home as usual. Next day i.e., on 29.09.2023, she came back to the shop at about 9.00 a.m., as usual, when she tried to open the main door of the shop, she noticed that mobile telephone sets, laptops, smart watches, analog watches etc., were stolen away by some unknown people by breaking open the lock of the main door.
5. A detailed list was furnished by her as to the number of items that were stolen away from the shop worth about Rs.35,00,000/- to Rs.40,00,000/-.
| Sl. No. | Property type | No. of properties |
| 1. | I –phones | 29 |
| 2. | One Plus Mobile Phones | 03 |
| 3. | Samsung Company Mobiles | 11 |
| 4. | Google company phones | 03 |
| 5. | Oppo Company Mobiles | 02 |
| 6. | IQOD Company mobiles | 02 |
| 7. | Huawei P-30 Pro Mobile | 01 |
| 8. | Nothing company Mobile | 01 |
| 9. | MAC Company laptops | 06 |
| 10. | Lenovo company laptop | 01 |
| 11. | Redmi Laptop | 01 |
| 12. | I –watchs | 15 |
| 13. | Sada watches | 45 |
| 14. | Samsung handy cam | 03 |
| 15. | Camera | 03 |
| 16. | Another company watches | 202 |
| 17. | Headphones | 05 |
| 18. | Video play stations | 02 |
| 19. | Bluetooth speaker | 01 |
| 20. | I-Phone hear buds | 08 |
| 21. | Huawei company watches | 02 |
| 22. | Other company speaker and buds | 18 |
| 23. | I-phone keypad | 17 |
6. Based on the said complaint, police registered the case in Cr.No.256/2023 and investigated the matter. During the course of investigation, the Investigation Officer was able to apprehend the accused persons and from their custody seized following properties.
| Sl. No. | Property type | No. of properties |
| 1. | I –phones | 29 |
| 2. | One Plus Mobile Phones | 03 |
| 3. | Samsung Company Mobiles | 11 |
| 4. | Google company phones | 03 |
| 5. | Oppo Company Mobiles | 02 |
| 6. | IQOD Company mobiles | 02 |
| 7. | Huawei P-30 Pro Mobile | 01 |
| 8. | Nothing company Mobile | 01 |
| 9. | MAC Company laptops | 06 |
| 10. | Lenovo company laptop | 01 |
| 11. | Redmi Laptop | 01 |
| 12. | I –watchs | 15 |
| 13. | ||
The court emphasized the necessity of proper documentation and handling of seized properties, particularly electronic items, to prevent loss of evidence and ensure justice.
The court reaffirmed the principle that further investigation remains permissible post charge-sheet, emphasizing the discretion of courts regarding interim custody of seized property to prevent undue....
The court acknowledged that vehicles seized in NDPS cases should not be retained indefinitely, establishing guidelines for interim release to prevent deterioration and ensure lawful ownership.
The entitlement to seized property post-acquittal is contingent upon proven ownership title, overriding mere possession claims.
provision of Section 452 of the Code and Para-227 of the Criminal Manual even when require the continuity of the muddamal articles which is not perishable.
The main legal point established is that under Section 457 of Cr.P.C., a court may allow the interim release of a seized vehicle with specific conditions, considering the practical problems faced by ....
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
