ORDER

The petitioners are before this Court seeking the following prayers:

"i. To set aside the order dated 28.04.2023 passed by the Hon'ble Metropolitan Magistrate Traffic Court-2 at Bengaluru in Crime No.84/2023 registered by the Amruthahally P.S., for offence P/U/S 98 of Karnataka Police Act, 1963.

ii. Consequently allow the application filed by the petitioners/applicants under Section 451 r/w 457 of Cr.P.C and direct the respondent police to release the amount which was seized and subjected in the PF No.40/2023 dated 27.03.2023 an amount of Rs.10,36,000/-(Rupees Ten Lakhs Thirty Six Thousand Only) to the petitioners for interim custody and bonafide use on such terms and conditions in the ends of justice."

2. Heard Sri. Sunil Kumar.S., learned counsel appearing for the petitioners, Smt. K.P.Yashoda., learned High Court Government Pleader appearing for respondent No.1 and have perused the material on record.

3. Petitioner Nos.1 and 2 are accused Nos.1 and 2 in Crime No.84/2023, registered for an offence punishable under Section 98 of the Karnataka Police Act, 1963. After registration of the crime, the police have seized an amount of Rs.10,36,000/- from the hands of the petitioners. After the said seizure, the petitioners move an application under Sections 451 and Section 457 of the Cr.P.C. before the learned Magistrate seeking release of the amount, so seized by the police. The concerned Court in terms of the impugned order has rejected the application, so filed seeking release of the amount. It is this order that drives the petitioners to this Court in the subject petition.

4. Learned counsel appearing for the petitioners submits that the amount so seized cannot be held by the prosecution beyond 15 days is the law laid down by the Apex Court SUNDERBHAI AMBALAL DESAI V. STATE OF GUJARAT reported in (2002) 10 SCC 283 and therefore seeks release of the said amount subject to any condition that would be imposed upon the petitioners by this Court.

5. Learned High Court Government Pleader would though seek to refute the submissions would admit the position of law. The issue now lies in a narrow compass, as to whether the order of the concerned Court rejecting the application filed under Section 451 read with Section 457 of the Cr.P.C. is tenable in law.

6. The afore-narrated facts are not in dispute and requires no reiteration. The issue in the lis need not detain this Court for long or delve deep into the matter as the Apex Court in the case of SUNDERBHAI AMBALAL DESAI V. STATE OF GUJARAT reported in (2002) 10 SCC 283, has held as follows:

"7. In our view, the powers under Section 451 CrPC should be exercised expeditiously and judiciously. It would serve various purposes, namely:

1. owner of the article would not suffer because of its remaining unused or by its misappropriation;

2. court or the police would not be required to keep the article in safe custody;

3. if the proper panchnama before handing over possession of the article is prepared, that can be used in evidence instead of its production before the court during the trial. If necessary, evidence could also be recorded describing the nature of the property in detail; and

4. this jurisdiction of the court to record evidence should be exercised promptly so that there may not be further chance of tampering with the articles.

11. With regard to valuable articles, such as, golden or silver ornaments or articles studded with precious stones, it is submitted that it is of no use to keep such articles in police custody for years till the trial is over. In our view, this submission requires to be accepted. In such cases, the Magistrate should pass appropriate orders as contemplated under Section 451 CrPC at the earliest.

12. For this purpose, if material on record indicates that such articles belong to the complainant at whose house theft, robbery or dacoity has taken place, then seized articles be handed over to the complainant after:

(1) preparing detailed proper panchnama of such articles;