Partly allowed

Shashikant S/O. Akaram Lendave v. the State of Karnataka

Karnataka HC14 Sept 2018WP/103861/2018

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The High Court at Dharwad, hearing writ petitions under Articles 226/227 and Section 482 Cr.P.C., modified conditions of an interim custody order. It mandated that all four petitioners, as co-owners of seized gold, execute indemnity bonds and furnish security of immovable property in their respective shares rather than requiring one petitioner to cover the full amount.

What did the court decide?

Conditions No.2 and 3 of the impugned order modified to require petitioners to furnish indemnity bond and security in their respective shares.

Shashikant S/O. Akaram Lendave Vs the State of Karnataka — Corruption | Karnataka HC (2018)

¶1

IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA

¶2

DHARWAD BENCH

¶3

DATED THIS THE 14^TH DAY OF SEPTEMBER 2018

¶4

BEFORE

¶5

THE HON’BLE MRS.JUSTICE K.S.MUDAGAL

¶6

WRIT PETITION Nos.103861 OF 2018 & 104384-386 OF 2018 (GM-RES)

¶7

BETWEEN:

¶8

SHASHIKANT S/O. AKARAM LENDAVE AGE:30 YRS, OCC:GOLDSMITH, R/O. 257, DHANE GALLI, SHAHAPUR, TALUK & DIST:BELAGAVI.

¶9

RAJENDRA S/O. BAPU SHINDE AGE:30 YRS, OCC:GOLD DEALER, R/O. C/O. M/S. R S BULLION, SHOP NO. 2 & 3, BHOJ GALLI, SHAHAPUR, TALUK AND DIST.BELAGAVI-590001.

¶10

SANTOSH S/O. PANDIT BABAR AGE:32 YRS, OCC:GOLD DEALER, R/O. 257, DHANE GALLI, SHAHAPUR, TALUK AND DIST.BELAGAVI-590001.

¶11

JAYANT S/O. PANDURANG JADHAV AGE:31 YRS, OCC:GOLD DEALER, R/O. C/O. M/S. J J BULLION, MAHATMA CO-OP. HOUSING SOCIETY, JERA BAIWADA ROAD, PAREL, MUMBAI-400012.

¶12

... PETITIONERS

¶13

(BY SRI.NITIN BOLABANDI, ADVOCATE)

¶14

W.P.Nos.103861/2018 & 104384-386/2018

¶15

: 2 :

¶16

AND:

¶17

THE STATE OF KARNATAKA REPRESENTED BY SPP HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA, DHARWAD, THROUGH MAL MARUTI POLICE STATION, TQ & DIST:BELAGAVI.

¶18

... RESPONDENT

¶19

(BY SRI. PRAVEEN K. UPPAR, HCGP)

¶20

¶21

THESE WRIT PETITIONS ARE FILED UNDER ARTICLES 226 AND 227 OF THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA R/W. SECTION 482 CR.P.C. SEEKING TO QUASH THE ORDER PASSED BY THE II JMFC, BELAGAVI IN MMPS P.S. CRIME NO.35/2018 DATED:03.05.2018 AS PER ANNEXURE-"D".

¶22

THESE PETITIONS COMING ON FOR PRELIMINARY HEARING , THIS DAY THE COURT MADE THE FOLLOWING:-

¶23

O R D E R

¶24

Petitioners are seeking quashing of condition No.3 of the order dated 03.05.2018 passed by the II JMFC Court, Belagavi in Crime No.35/2018 of Mal Maruti Police Station, Belagavi City.

¶25

The Mal Maruti Police registered Crime No.35/2018 against one Mohan Prabhakar Devkar for the offences punishable under Section 41(1)(d) R/w. Section 102 of Cr.P.C. and Section 379 of IPC, on the basis of the complaint/report of

¶26

W.P.Nos.103861/2018 & 104384-386/2018

¶27

: 3 :

¶28

A. S. Gudigoppa, Police Inspector of CCIB Unit, Belagavi.

¶29

It was alleged that, on 18.02.2018 at 2.30 am near Sagar Hotel service road, Belagavi, when the complainant and his staff were on patrol duty, found the accused moving in a suspicious manner with a bag in his hand. It was alleged that, on search of the said bag, it found containing gold ingots in all weighing 3.05 kgs worth Rs.95,15,000/-. The complainant seized the same and on registration of the case the seizure of the property was reported to the Court.

¶30

The petitioners who are the gold traders filed an application before the Magistrate under Section 451 of Cr.P.C claiming that the said gold was purchased on their purchase orders and they had paid money for that. They claimed that they have share in the said property in the following ratio:

¶31

Petitioner No.1 – 300 gms Petitioner No.2 – 500 gms

¶32

W.P.Nos.103861/2018 & 104384-386/2018

¶33

: 4 :

¶34

Petitioner No.3 – 323 gms

¶35

Petitioner No.4 – 881 gm

¶36

They also produced the purchase bills to that effect before the Magistrate. The Magistrate by the impugned order granted interim custody of the said property to petitioner No.1 on behalf of all the petitioners with certain conditions. Condition No.3 is that the 1^st petitioner shall produce the bank guarantee for a sum of Rs.95,15,000/-.

¶37

Petitioners challenged the said condition on the ground that it works oppressively against them. They further submit that the said sum of Rs.95,15,000/- constitute the share of all the four of them and they are ready to execute indemnity bond and to furnish security of immovable property in the ratio of their shares. The petitioners have filed affidavits to that effect.

¶38

As per the purchase bills, petitioners are the owners of the said property in the ratio of

¶39

W.P.Nos.103861/2018 & 104384-386/2018

¶40

: 5 :

¶41

their purchase. On satisfying about the rights of petitioners the Magistrate has granted interim custody of the property. Requiring the 1^st petitioner alone to furnish indemnity bond and bank guarantee in such a tall sum defeats the order as the said condition is very hilarious. Therefore, the conditions No.2 and 3 of the impugned order require to be modified.

¶42

Petitions are partly allowed. Conditions No.2 and 3 of the impugned order dated 03.05.2018 passed by the JMFC II Court, Belagavi in Crime No.35/2018 of Mal Maruti Police Station are modified as follows:

¶43

Petitioners No.1 and 3 shall execute indemnity bond and furnish security of immovable property in a sum of Rs.17,00,000/(Rupees Seventeen Lakhs) and Rs.20,00,000/(Rupees Twenty Lakhs) respectively and Petitioners No.2 and 4 shall execute

¶44

W.P.Nos.103861/2018 & 104384-386/2018

¶45

: 6 :

¶46

indemnity bond and furnish security of immovable property in a sum of Rs.23,00,000/- (Rupees Twenty Three Lakhs) and Rs.37,00,000/(Rupees Thirty Seven Lakhs) respectively.

¶47

Sd/JUDGE

¶48

gab

Shashikant S/O. Akaram Lendave v. the State of Karnataka

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Shashikant S/O. Akaram Lendave v. the State of Karnataka

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

What the court decided

A compact analysis

Issues for consideration

Statutes considered

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Sri.Bharath a.G., Vs Sri.Parameshappa S/O Rudrappa Gadagi

Sagar S/O Devanand Jagapur Vs the State of Karnataka

Vinayak S/O Pandurang Yankanchi Vs the State of Karnataka

Ambra Naik S/O. Late Gemya Naik Vs the State

Rajshekhar S/O Channappanainegali Vs Yallappa S/O Banojappa Chitragar

Rajshekhar S/O Channappa Nainegali Vs Gavisiddappa S/O Shivappa Mundaragi