1

IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA

AT BENGALURU

DATED THIS THE 16^TH DAY OF MARCH, 2021

BEFORE:

THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE H.P. SANDESH

CRIMINAL PETITION NO.7339 OF 2020

BETWEEN:

CANANRA BANK,

REPRESENED BY ITS

CHIEF MANAGER,

SMT. V.SREELAKSHMI,

SARAKKI BRANCH,

BANGALORE-70.

ALSO HAVING ITS HEAD OFFICE AT

NO.112, J.C.ROAD,

BENGALURU.

... PETITIONER

[BY SRI. LOKESHA G., ADVOCATE]

AND:

STATE BY J.P.NAGAR POLICE STATION,

REPRESENTED BY

STATE PUBLIC PROSECUTOR,

HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA,

AMBEDKAR VEEDHI,

BANGALORE-560 001.

... RESPONDENT

[BY SRI. MAHESH SHETTY, HCGP]

* * *

THIS CRIMINAL PETITION IS FILED UNDER SECTION 482 OF

CR.P.C.,

PRAYING

TO

QUASH

THE

ORDER

ON

THE

PETITIONER’S/APPLICANT’S MEMO DATED 10.01.2020 PASSED IN C.C.

2

NO.17334/2015 PENDING ON THE FILE OF THE XXX ACMM,

BANGALORE VIDE ANNEXURE-A.

THIS CRIMINAL PETITION COMING ON FOR ADMISSION, THIS

DAY THE COURT MADE THE FOLLOWING:

ORDER

This petition is filed under Section 482 of Cr.P.C.

praying this Court to quash the Order dated 10.01.2020

passed in C.C. No.17334/2015, pending on the file of the

learned XXX Addl. C.M.M. Court, Bengaluru City and pass

such other order.

2.

The factual matrix of the case are that, the

petitioner bank initially filed an application on 26.10.2011

before the Police in respect of fraudulent withdrawal made

in

the

bank

customer’s

account.

In

turn,

the

respondent/Police

have

registered

a

case

in

Crime

No.799/2011

against

unknown

person

and

upon

investigation, one Smt. S.Radha was found to be culprit and

accordingly, named her as accused and she was arrested.

3

During the course of investigation, an amount of Rs.12

lakhs were seized. In 2012 the petitioner bank has filed an

application under Section 457 of Cr.P.C. before the learned

Magistrate seeking permission to appropriate seized amount

of Rs.12 lakhs to adjust the same towards the loss caused

to the bank by the accused and the learned Magistrate has

allowed the same on 04.07.2012. In view of change of

Bank Manager, they could not approach the Court and

furnish the surety and execute the indemnity bond in time

and the same was furnished in 2019. In the meanwhile, the

Central Government demonetized the notes of Rs.500/- and

Rs.1,000/-. After release of the seized notes, the petitioner

bank has approached the RBI. In view of notification of the

Central Government, the RBI did not exchange the said

notes and refused to receive and exchange the said notes

and sought direction from the Court. Hence, a memo was

filed before the learned Magistrate, praying direction to the

RBI to receive the notes.

4

The learned Magistrate passed an Order on the Memo

vide Order dated 10.01.2020, rejecting the prayer made by

the petitioner bank on the ground that there was a delay in

taking back the amount and there is difficulty that whether

the petitioner bank received the I.O. currency notes as per

the list produced before the Court. Further, observed it is

necessary for identification at the time of trial.

3.

The learned counsel appearing for the petitioner

bank would vehemently contend that if no direction is

issued in favour of the RBI., it is very difficult to exchange

the notes in view of the notification of the Ministry of

Finance and hence, the impugned order has to be set aside

and a direction has to be given to the RBI.

4.

Having

perused

the

original

Order

dated

04.07.2012, while allowing the application the learned

Magistrate directed to execute indemnity bond and also

furnish surety. It has also directed the applicant bank to

produce the said amount before the Court as and when

directed. It has also directed to prepare detail mahazar in

5

respect of the said amount I.O. shall take the photographs

of the said amount and produce