Dismissed

Smt. Munirathnamma v. State of Karnataka

Karnataka HC18 Aug 2021CRL.RP/225/2020

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

Petitioner challenged dismissal of her petition for release of seized cash alleged to be sale consideration. Court rejected interim custody request, noting inconsistency in amounts and ongoing investigation into alleged corruption at a Sub-Registrar Office.

What did the court decide?

The prayer for release of the seized amount of Rs.9.00 lakh to the petitioner's interim custody is dismissed.

Smt. Munirathnamma Vs State of Karnataka — Corruption | Karnataka HC (2021)

¶1

¶2

IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU

¶3

DATED THIS THE 18^TH DAY OF AUGUST, 2021

¶4

BEFORE

¶5

THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE K. NATARAJAN CRIMINAL REVISION PETITION NO.225 OF 2020

¶6

BETWEEN:

¶7

SMT. MUNIRATHNAMMA D/O. BEEDHI MUNIVENKATAPPA, W/O. ASHWATHAPPA, AGED ABOUT 53 YEARS, RESIDING AT HANCHALA VILLAGE, BANGARPET TALUK, KOLAR DISTRICT – 563 114.

¶8

... PETITIONER

¶9

(BY SRI B.V. SRINATHA, ADV., FOR SRI M.R. NANJUNDA GOWDA)

¶10

AND:

¶11

STATE OF KARNATAKA BY ANTI CORRUPTION BUREAU, KOLAR, BENGALURU – 560 001.

¶12

... RESPONDENT

¶13

(BY SRI P.N. MANMOHAN, SPECIAL COUNSEL)

¶14

¶15

THIS CRIMINAL REVISION PETITION IS FILED UNDER SECTION 397 READ WITH SECTION 401 OF THE CR.P.C PRAYING TO RELEASE THE AMOUNT OF RS.9,00,000/WHICH IS MENTIONED IN P.F. NO.39 OF 2019 DATED 7-11-2019 IN CRIME NO.18 OF 2019 OF A.C.B. POLICE, KOLAR, NOW PENDING ON THE FILE OF THE PRINCIPAL DISTRICT AND SESSIONS JUDGE, KOLAR.

¶16

THIS CRIMINAL REVISION PETITION IS COMING ON FOR ADMISSION, THIS DAY, THE COURT MADE THE FOLLOWING:

¶17

¶18

O R D E R

¶19

This petition is filed by the petitioner under Section 397 read with Section 401 of the Cr.P.C. challenging the order of dismissal passed by the Principal District and Sessions Judge, Kolar, in Crime No.18 of 2019 for releasing cash of Rs.9.00 lakh which was seized by the Anti-Corruption Bureau (for short, ‘ACB’) during raid on 7-11-2019 under P.F. No.39 of 2019.

¶20

Heard the learned counsel for the petitioner and the learned Special counsel for the respondent-ACB.

¶21

The case of the petitioner is that, the petitioner went to the Sub-Registrar Office, Malur, for executing sale deed for selling her property to one Lakshmidevi on 7-11-2019. Sale deed amount has been received by the petitioner from the purchaser and kept with K.S. Ramprasad, who is a Typist in Ganesha DTP Center, at that time, ACB Police have seized the cash under panchanama.

¶22

¶23

Learned counsel for the petitioner has contended that amount seized by the Police is the sale consideration amount for having selling the property of the petitioner. Further, the petitioner is not the employee of SubRegistrar Office or agent of Sub-Registrar as alleged by the prosecution. The petitioner is ready to abide by any of the conditions that may be imposed by this Court. Hence, he prayed for releasing the amount seized by the Police.

¶24

On the other hand, the learned Special counsel for the respondent-ACB has objected the petition and contended that the ACB Police received credible information that mediators, deed writers and others in the Sub-Registrar Office are involved in theft practices receiving huge money from the public through agents and DTP center. Upon registering the case on 24-10-2019 in Crime No.18 of 2019, they conducted raid, at that time, on search at Ganesha DTP Center, they seized cash of Rs.9.00 lakh from the possession of K.S. Ramprasad in

¶25

¶26

whose custody the petitioner is said to have given the said amount. Investigation is under progress. Hence, he prayed for dismissing the petition.

¶27

Upon hearing the arguments and perusal of the record, Rs.9.00 lakh is seized by the ACB Police at Ganesha DTP Center. Allegation against the Sub-Registrar Office is that they are involved in corrupt practices through agents and the DTP Center. The learned Special counsel for the ACB also brought to the notice that, if at all contention of the petitioner is acceptable that she received Rs.9.00 lakh by selling the property, but the sale deed goes to show that amount of Rs.3,96,000/- has been paid by cheque bearing No.564350 dated 8-11-2019 and cash of Rs.5,00,000/has already been received. Therefore, when the sale deed amount has already been given by the purchaser, question of keeping Rs.9.00 lakh by the petitioner in the DTP Center does not arise. Therefore, explanation offered is not correct. Further, learned Special counsel submits that the amount kept by

¶28

¶29

K.S. Ramprasad is nothing but the bribe amount received at the instance of Sub-Registrar Office. Investigation is still under progress. This Court has already rejected Criminal Petition No.829 of 2020 on 7-7-2021 filed by one of the employees of Ganesha DTP Center of similar nature. Therefore, without expressing any opinion on the merits of the case and until completion of investigation, the petitioner is not entitled for release of cash of Rs.9.00 lakh to her interim custody.

¶30

Accordingly, the petition is dismissed .

¶31

Sd/JUDGE

¶32

kvk

Smt. Munirathnamma v. State of Karnataka

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Smt. Munirathnamma 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 P Ramesh Vs Sri a Murugesh

Pazhaniyappa Vellumayil Vs State of Karnataka

Mohiddin Vs the State of Karnataka

Sri. M Ramachandra Vs M/S West Line Constructions

Sri. G K Chandrashekar Vs State of Karnataka

Sri Ashish Bhandari Vs M/S Winstar Fashions Pvt. Ltd.