ORDER

The petitioner has challenged an order dated 30.04.2019 passed by the IX Additional District and Sessions Judge and Special Judge, Bengaluru Rural District, Bengaluru in Spl.Case No.488/2011 (henceforth referred to be as trial Court), by which an application filed by him under Section 451 read with Section 452 of Cr.P.C., was rejected.

2. The petitioner was charge sheeted in Spl.Case No.488/2011 for the offence punishable under Section 13(1)(e) read with Section 13(2) of the Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988. The said proceedings were challenged in Crl.P.No.4463/2018 on the ground that, the required sanction under Section 19 of the Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988 was not obtained. This Court in terms of the order dated 16.08.2018, allowed the petition and discharged the petitioner from the said case. However, the Investigating Officer was directed to place the charge sheet papers and the relevant papers before the competent authority or disciplinary authority for sanction and depending upon the action taken by the sanctioning authority, the prosecuting agency was granted liberty to take further steps in accordance with law. The order of this Court is stated to be assailed by the prosecuting agency in SLP.Crl.No.6916/2019 which is pending consideration before the Hon'ble Supreme Court.

3. In the meanwhile, the petitioner herein filed an application under Section 451 read with Section 452 of Cr.P.C. for release of the articles that were seized from his custody namely gold ornaments and a sum of Rs.2,500/- in cash. The trial Court rejected the application on the ground that the prosecuting agency has to be given sufficient breathing time to challenge the order passed by this Court in Crl.P.No.4463/2018. It is also held that the request of the investigating agency for grant of sanction is still not considered by the disciplinary authority. Being aggrieved by the same, the present petition is filed.

4. The learned Senior counsel representing the petitioner submits that the order passed by this Court in Crl.P.No.4463/2018 was on 16.08.2018 and even after lapse of five years, no positive action is taken by the investigating agency for the disposal of the Special Leave Petition (Criminal) No.6916/2019 filed before the Hon'ble Supreme Court. He further submits that instead of the prosecuting agency retaining the custody of the seized articles he may be granted the custody subject to any condition and that he would furnish sufficient surety or security to the satisfaction of the trial Court.

5. Learned counsel for respondent submits that, if the petitioner were to furnish adequate security in respect of the value of the seized articles, respondent would not have any objection to release the seized goods.

6. In view of the aforesaid submissions made by the learned counsel for the respondent, this petition is allowed and the impugned order is set aside. The trial Court is directed to release the seized gold ornaments and cash to the custody of the petitioner, subject to following conditions: i) The seized gold ornaments seized by the prosecuting agency from the custody of the petitioner shall be handedover to the interim custody of the petitioner and he shall not alter/change its shape/size/weight of the ornaments until disposal of the case before Hon'ble Supreme Court in SLP (Criminal) No.6916/2019;

ii) The trial Court shall keep a record of the shape/size/weight of each ornament and capture photographs of the ornaments and place them in the file;

iii) The petitioner shall undertake by an affidavit to produce them whenever directed by the trial Court to do so;

iv) The petitioner shall furnish adequate security to cover the value of the seized gold ornaments and cash and the same shall be to the satisfaction of the trial Court.

This order will not apply to any other documents or things seized from the custody of the petitioner.