Allowed

Mr Govinda Naik v. State of Karnataka

Karnataka HC19 Nov 2020CRL.P/4265/2020

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The High Court of Karnataka, treating a criminal petition, held that police seizure of a natural diamond without pending investigation or trial was unsustainable. The Court rejected the argument that remedies under Sections 451 and 457 Cr.P.C. were available absent a pending case. Exercising inherent powers under Section 482 Cr.P.C., the Court declared the seizure invalid and directed the police t

What did the court decide?

The seized natural diamond weighing 86.55 carrots be delivered to the petitioner within four weeks, subject to production of ownership documents.

Mr Govinda Naik Vs State of Karnataka — Constitutional and Fundamental Rights | Karnataka HC (2020)

¶1

CRL.P.No.4265 of 2020

¶2

¶3

IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU

¶4

DATED THIS THE 19^TH DAY OF NOVEMBER, 2020

¶5

BEFORE

¶6

THE HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE SURAJ GOVINDARAJ

¶7

CRIMINAL PETITION NO.4265 OF 2020

¶8

BETWEEN:

¶9

MR. GOVINDA NAIK, S/O CHANDE NAIK, AGED ABOUT 50 YEARS, R/O AIVARAHALLI, KANEVENAHALLI POST, PAVAGADA, TUMKUR – 561 202.

¶10

... PETITIONER

¶11

(BY SRI BHARATH KUMAR V., ADVOCATE)

¶12

AND:

¶13

STATE OF KARNATAKA, THROUGH STATION HOUSE OFFICER, HEBBAL POLICE STATION, BENGALURU – 560 024. REPRESENTED BY STATE PUBLIC PROSECUTOR, HON’BLE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA, BENGALURU – 560 001.

¶14

... RESPONDENT

¶15

(BY SRI K. NAGESHWARAPPA, HCGP)

¶16

THIS CRIMINAL PETITION IS FILED UNDER SECTION 482 OF CR.P.C. PRAYING TO QUASH THE P.F. NO. 60/2020 REGISTERED WITH THE RESPONDENT

¶17

CRL.P.No.4265 of 2020

¶18

¶19

POLICE AND CONSEQUENTLY DIRECT THE RESPONDENT POLICE TO DELIVER THE SAID PROPERTY SEIZED VIDE SUCH P.F.NO.60/2020, TO THE CUSTODY OF THE PETITIONER HEREIN ETC.,

¶20

THIS PETITION COMING ON FOR ADMISSION, THROUGH VIDEO CONFERENCE, THIS DAY, THE COURT MADE THE FOLLOWING:

¶21

ORDER

¶22

The petitioner is before this Court seeking for a declaration that the actions of the respondentpolice in seizing the property of the petitioner vide P.F. No.60/2020 is illegal and consequent direction to the respondent-police to delivery the property seized in the said P.F. No.60/2020.

¶23

The property seized by the said police in the said P.F. number is a Natural Diamond measuring 86.55 carrots.

¶24

Sri Bharath Kumar V., learned counsel for the petitioner submits that there is no proceeding which has been initiated against the petitioner, except for

¶25

CRL.P.No.4265 of 2020

¶26

¶27

the seizure of the Natural Diamond belonging to the petitioner from the petitioner no proceedings have been taken up. Hence, he submits that withholding of the property by the petitioner which is admittedly seized from the petitioner by the respondent-police is illegal and has to be declared so.

¶28

Despite the matter being adjourned on several occasions for the respondent-State to make its submission in this regard in writing, no such submissions have been made.

¶29

Today on enquiry Sri K. Nageshwarappa learned HCGP for the respondent-State would submit that NCR has been registered subsequent to the seizure of the property subject matter of P.F. No.60/2020 i.e. a Natural Diamond as the said property has been retained by the respondent-police awaiting a reply from the Income-Tax Department to the letter issued by the respondent to the Income-Tax

¶30

CRL.P.No.4265 of 2020

¶31

¶32

Department. Hence, he submits that the property has been retained legally and the petitioner has an alternate remedy to make an application under Sections 451 and 457 of the Cr.P.C., for return of the seized Natural Diamond.

¶33

Heard Sri Bharath Kumar V., learned counsel for the petitioner and Sri K. Nageshwarappa, learned HCGP for the respondent-State and perused the papers found.

¶34

Admittedly the Natural Diamond has been seized by the respondent-police. There is no dispute as regards the ownership of the said Natural Diamond. The respondent-police has also not been able to establish or make out any case for the seizure, why the same was seized as also why the same is retained by the police.

¶35

CRL.P.No.4265 of 2020

¶36

¶37

Except the submission being made that the respondent-police is awaiting reply to the letter sent by the respondent to the Income-Tax Department there is no other defence or response to the allegations made by the petitioner.

¶38

Sri Nageshwarappa has further submitted that NCR has been registered in respect of the above seizure. If that be so, I fail to understand as to on what

¶39

basis the seizure has been made and or the possession of the seized item continued with the respondent-police since once the NCR is registered there is no cognizable offence make out for the purpose of investigation.

¶40

Any seizure has to be made in furtherance of the investigation for the purposes of the trial to be conducted. There being no investigation and there being no trial which is going to be conducted, the

¶41

CRL.P.No.4265 of 2020

¶42

¶43

seizure and retention of any property let out the Natural Diamond in this case is unsustainable.

¶44

The further, submission made by the learned HCGP that the petitioner can apply under Sections 451 and 457 of Cr.P.C., is also have no avail, since there is no proceedings which has been initiated, it would not be possible for the petitioner to file such an application without reference to any particular case or a particular Court. No Court can exercise such jurisdiction under Sections 451 and 457 of Crl.P.C. and the Application filed by the petitioner dehors a reference to the case number, since it is only that reference which would decide whether that Court has jurisdiction over the matter as an application can be entertained by the Court. Only if a case is pending before that Court. This contention of learned HCGP is rejected holding that the same is neither an alternate nor efficacious remedy.

¶45

CRL.P.No.4265 of 2020

¶46

¶47

Though learned HCGP has contended that the above petition could not be filed only seeking for return of the goods seized, I am of the considered opinion that there being no alternate or efficacious remedy for the petitioner to redress his grievance as regards seizure and the return of the seized item. Petitioner has rightly approached this Court seeking for this Court to exercise its extraordinary inherent powers under Section 482 of Cr.P.C.

¶48

For all the aforesaid reasons, namely that seizure could not have been made in the absence of any proceedings pending investigation the seizure is declared invalid. Respondent-police is directed to deliver the seized property, namely; Natural Diamond weighting 86.55 carrots within a period of four weeks from the date of receipt of a copy of this order, subject to the petitioner producing the original documents evidencing his ownership over

¶49

CRL.P.No.4265 of 2020

¶50

¶51

the said property. Since, there are no proceedings, which are pending there would be no requirements for imposition of any further conditions except to say that if at all any proceedings are initiated at a later point of time (within reasonable time) the petitioner could produce the property if so required.

¶52

The petition is allowed.

¶53

Sd/-

¶54

JUDGE

¶55

SBS*

Mr Govinda Naik v. State of Karnataka

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Mr Govinda Naik v. 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 C R Thimmaraju Vs State by Chikkanayakanahalli

Mr Ashitosh @ Ashish Mahaveer Kudachi Vs the State of Karnataka

Sri Praveen Shigganvi Vs State of Karnataka

U a Mohammed Hafeel Vs the State of Karnataka

Sri Vaseem Ahmmed Vs the State by

Smt. Usha B S Vs the State of Karnataka