Back
2025 Supreme(Online)(KAR) 9930
HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA
MS JUSTICE J.M.KHAZI, J
PAVAN K – Appellant
Versus
STATE OF KARNATAKA – Respondent
CRL.RP 1599 of 2024
The court affirmed the right to interim custody of seized property, emphasizing the imposition of conditions to protect the prosecution's interests.
Headnote:(A) Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 - Sections 397 and 407 - Application for interim custody of seized property - Petitioner sought release of I-Phone 15 Pro Max, previously seized, arguing it would lose value if not properly kept - Trial Court rejected application due to lack of signature on invoice - Court emphasized that the property was seized from the petitioner and that conditions could be imposed for its interim custody. (Paras 1, 2, 8, 9)
(B) Interim Custody - The court held that the petitioner is entitled to interim custody of the seized cell phone, subject to conditions to safeguard the prosecution's interests. (Paras 9)
Facts of the case:
The petitioner, accused No.4, sought the release of an I-Phone 15 Pro Max seized during an online betting investigation, arguing that the trial court's rejection of his application was unsustainable. (Paras 1, 2)
Findings of Court:
The court found that the petitioner is entitled to interim custody of the cell phone, subject to conditions to ensure its availability for evidence. (Paras 9)
Issues: The main issues included whether the trial court properly assessed the evidence regarding the ownership of the cell phone and the conditions for its interim custody. (Paras 2, 8)
Ratio Decidendi: The court ruled that the petitioner, being the owner of the seized property, is entitled to its interim custody, emphasizing the need for conditions to protect the prosecution's interests. (Paras 9)
Result: Petition allowed.
ORAL ORDER
Petitioner who is arraigned as accused No.4 has filed this petition under Section 397 r/w 407 of Code of Criminal Procedure is with a prayer to set aside the order dated 15.11.2024 passed by the trial Court in Cr.No.50/2024, rejecting his application filed under Section 451 and 457 of Cr.P.C , allow the application filed by him for release of property in PF.No.23/2024 i.e., I-Phone 15 Pro Max 256GB to his interim custody pending disposal of the case.
2. In support of the petition, the petitioner has contended that impugned order is not sustainable. While passing the impugned order, the learned Magistrate has not followed the guidelines issued by this Court in Vishal Ramesh Kadwani Vs. State of Karnataka (Vishal Ramesh)1 Crl.RP.No.210/2024. The trial Court has rejected his application for interim custody of the seized property mainly on the ground that the electronic invoice produced by him does not contain his signature. The invoice in question disclose the invoice number as well as SGST component. There are no rival claims. In the absence of proper environment for safe keeping of the property in question, there is every chance of it being spoilt or its value deteriorated. Admittedly, the property in question is seized from the possession of the petitioner. He is ready and willing to abide by any conditions that may be imposed and hence, the petition.
3. Learned High Court Government Pleader representing the respondent/State submitted that when the trial Court disposed of the application filed by the petitioner charge sheet was not yet filed. Now that the charge sheet is filed, the petition may be allowed and property in question may be handed over to the interim custody of the petitioner subject to conditions.
4. Heard arguments and perused the record.
5. On 03.04.2024, the Police Inspector, Cubbon Park P.S filed a complaint to the effect that on 02.04.2024, he received credible information that some persons are engaged in online betting with regard to the IPL cricket match held between Royal Challengers, Bengaluru and Lucknow Super Giants, inside M.Chinnaswamy Stadium. He secured permission from I ACMM, Bengaluru and warrant from ACP. At 10.30 p.m, he along with staff entered Gate No.9 and apprehended accused No.1 Sanjeev Kumar. On examination of Redmi Note-9 cell phone found with him and also the entry ticket, it was found that he was engaged in online betting using gold365.site betting website through ID: gk498sanjeev13 passwaord-skb192003. Similarly when they apprehended one more person by name Pavan he was also engaged in online betting using I-phone 15 Promax on LASER247.com betting website through ID Vinod839lr password - Vinod@8892. The relevant screenshots were also taken.
Both accused were taken in to custody and their cell phones were seized through mahazar. The accused, seized cell phones and other material is produced before the station for necessary action.
6. Based on the complaint, Cr.No.50/2024 is registered and investigation is taken up. After completing the investigation, charge sheet is filed.
7. The petitioner/accused No.2 filed application under Section 451 r/w 457 Cr.P.C to release I-phone 15 Promax to his interim custody, pending disposal of the criminal case, contending that he is the owner of the same. If kept idly without proper protection, it will loose its value and become useless. He is ready to abide by any conditions that may be imposed. The trial Court has rejected his application, mainly on the ground that the receipt/invoice for having purchased the cell phone does not contain the signature of the seller as well as the buyer. It is submitted by the learned counsel for petitioner that the invoice in question is not original and copy of it is collected from the shop where petitioner has purchased the cell phone in question. In the same manner, photocopy of invoice is also produced before this Court bearing the signature of the authorized signatory as well as the petitioner/purchaser.
8.
