Allowed

Sri S S Nagesh v. the State of Karnataka

Karnataka HC13 Jan 2022CRL.RP/1347/2021

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

High Court allowed the criminal revision petition, setting aside the lower court order that denied the release of seized cash and defreezing of the petitioners bank account. The Court directed the release of funds subject to a bank guarantee. A subsequent order modified the security condition to allow immovable property as security.

What did the court decide?

Impugned order set aside; cash returned and bank account defrozen subject to provision of security; security condition modified to accept immovable property.

Sri S S Nagesh Vs the State of Karnataka — Corruption | Karnataka HC (2022)

¶1

¶2

IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU

¶3

DATED THIS THE 13^TH DAY OF JANUARY, 2022

¶4

BEFORE

¶5

THE HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE SREENIVAS HARISH KUMAR

¶6

CRIMINAL REVISION PETITION NO.1347 OF 2021

¶7

BETWEEN:

¶8

SRI. S.S. NAGESH AGED 48 YEARS, S/O LATE SUBBARAYAPPA S. C., GENERAL MANAGER, KARNATAKA MAHARSHI VALMIKI SCHEDULE TRIBES DEVELOPMENT BOARD LIMITED, BENGALURU-560 027.

¶9

R/AT SAI SRINIVASA DEVAKI APPRAO RAMAMURTHY NAGARA, BENGALURU -560 016.

¶10

…PETITIONER

¶11

(BY SRI. N. N. DAMODAR, ADVOCATE)

¶12

AND:

¶13

THE STATE OF KARNATAKA, BY DEPUTY SUPERINTENDENT OF POLICE, ANTI CORRUPTION BUREAU, NO.49, KHANIJA BHAVAN, RC ROAD, BENGALURU. REPRESENTED BY STATE PUBLIC PROSECUTOR, HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA, BENGALURU-560 001.

¶14

…RESPONDENT

¶15

(BY SRI. P. N. MANMOHAN, SPL. PP)

¶16

THIS CRL.RP FILED U/S.397 R/W 401 CR.P.C BY THE ADVOCATE FOR THE PETITIONER PRAYING THAT THIS HONBLE

¶17

¶18

COURT MAY BE PLEASED TO SET ASIDE THE IMPUGNED ORDER DATED 30.10.2021 PASSED BY THE LEARNED XXIII ADDITIONAL CITY CIVIL AND SESSIONS JUDGE AND SPECIAL JUDGE (PAC) BENGALURU IN CR.NO.32/2020 REGISTERED BY THE RESPONDENT POLICE (ANNEXURE-P) AND CONSEQUENTLY ALLOW THE APPLICATION FILED U/S.451 AND 457 OF CRPC BY THE PETITIONER (ACCUSED NO.2) AND THEREBY RELEASE THE AMOUNT OF RS.4,65,000/- SEIZED UNDER P.F.NO.53/2020 AND SUM OF RS.32,84,650 SEIZED UNDER P.F.NO.54/2020 TO THE PETITIONER AND ALSO PASS AN ORDER TO DE-FREEZE THE SB A/C BEARING NO.1175101041100 OF THE PETITIONER WITH CANARA BANK, SMAPANGIRAMANAGAR BRANCH, BENGALURU. THIS CRIMINAL REVISION PETITION COMING ON FOR ADMISSION THIS DAY, THE COURT MADE THE FOLLOWING:

¶19

ORDER

¶20

Heard Sri. N.N.Damodar, learned counsel for the petitioner and Sri. P.N.Manmohan, learned Special PP for the respondent. The petitioner has filed this revision petition aggrieved by the order passed by the XXIII Additional City Civil and Sessions Judge & Special Judge (P.C Act) Bengaluru (CCH-24) dismissing his application made under Section 451 and 457 of Cr.PC.

¶21

The facts are as follows:

¶22

The petitioner is working as General Manger in Karnataka Maharshi Valmiki Schedule Tribe Development

¶23

¶24

Corporation Board (in short ‘board’). On a credible information given to the Deputy Superintendent of Police, Anti -Corruption Bureau, Bengaluru on 26.08.2020 that the petitioner had indulged in misusing the funds granted to the board, the respondent registered an FIR and then conducted a raid on the office and residential premises of the petitioner. Raid was also conducted in the house of other accused.

¶25

During the raid, respondent seized a sum of Rs.32,84,650/- from the residential premises of the petitioner and sum of Rs.4,65,000/- from the possession of the petitioner, the total sum seized was Rs.37,49,650/-. The Bank account of the petitioner was also freezed.

¶26

The petitioner made an application under Section 451 and 457 of Cr.PC in the Court below for defreezing the bank account and releasing the cash of Rs.37,49,650/-. The petitioner submitted explanation as to how cash of Rs.32,84,650/- was found in his house and that Rs.4,65,000/-

¶27

was with him on the day when the raid was conducted. His explanation was that his sister wanted to purchase a second

¶28

¶29

hand car and in that connection she had given Rs.4,65,000/to the petitioner and he was having money with him on that day. He also gave another explanation that his another sister’s husband Sri. J.V. Narayana Swamy was a chronic patient. For his medical expenses he was in need of money and besides that, J.V. Narayana Swamy had entered into an unregistered agreement of sale on 18.06.2020 with one V. Narasimha Murthy for selling his property for a consideration of Rs.42,00,000/-. Under the agreement J.V. Narayana Swamy had received Rs.22,00,000/-. Since J.V. Narayana Swamy was living in a Government quarters, finding it unsafe to keep the cash in his house, had given the cash to the petitioner for keeping it in his house. Thus, cash of Rs.32,84,650/- was found in his residential premises on the day when the raid was conducted. He pleaded for defreezing his bank account as his salary is being credited to that account and on account of freezing, he cannot withdraw money even for his day to day expenses.

¶30

¶31

The respondent objected to the application on

¶32

several grounds.

¶33

The Court below rejected the application assigning

¶34

the reason that till completion of investigation, seized money can not be returned and that the bank account can not be defreezed.

¶35

Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that

¶36

though the petitioner gave suitable explanation as to how cash of Rs.32,84,650/- was found in his house and Rs.4,65,000/-

¶37

with him on the day of raid was conducted, the Court below has not considered the reasons in right perspective and thus it has failed to exercise its jurisdiction. He further argued that the petitioner has produced agreement of sale that came in to existence between his brother-in-law/J.V. Narayana Swamy and V Narasimha Murthy. This agreement shows that the total sale consideration was Rs.42,00,000/- and his brotherin-law received Rs.22,00,000/- under the agreement of sale.

¶38

Medical documents have also been produced to show the health condition of J.V. Narayana Swamy. All the documents

¶39

¶40

probalize the petitioner’s explanation for release of cash and defreezing of the Bank account. Since, the cash does not belong to the petitioner and it belongs to his brother-in-law and his sister, if seized money is not released, the interest of his brother-in-law and sister will suffer. By imposing certain conditions, the Court below could have allowed the application. Since it has failed to exercise the jurisdiction, this Court can interfere. He argued for allowing the revision petition.

¶41

Sri. P.N. Manmohan, learned Special PP submits that if money is released, there is no guarantee that the petitioner will return it in case he is held guilty of the offences after trial. The investigation is not yet completed and rightly the court below has come to conclusion to reject the application. There is no scope for interference.

¶42

Having heard both the side, it may be stated that as the records disclose on the basis of credible information given to the respondent, raid was conducted on 27.08.2020. The FIR has been registered for the offences punishable under

¶43

¶44

Section 7(a), 7A, 8, 13(1)(c) of P.C Act. It is not the case of the respondent that the petitioner was trapped while receiving bribe, the allegations against the petitioner are that he had indulged in misusing the funds of the board. Whatever may be the allegations, it is to be stated now that the petitioner had offered some explanation as to how he was found in possession of the money. Though it is difficult to accept the explanation as it is a matter of proof, it may be stated that there is no impediment for returning the cash seized from the possession of the petitioner. After seizing the money, mahazar was drawn by noting the serial numbers of the seized currency notes. The seized cash may be necessary during the trial for identification. For his purpose, cash need not be produced, photographs of the currency notes may be taken and they may be marked in evidence. The numbers noted in the mahazar may be tallied with the numbers found in the photographs of the currency notes taken. If it is so required, while returning the cash, the serial numbers of the currency notes may be again noted down and the signature of the petitioner may be obtained. Of course,

¶45

¶46

there is a point in the objection taken by the respondent; in case if the petitioner is convicted, he has to return the money so that it may be confiscated to the Government. To meet this situation, the petitioner may be subjected to a condition that he should provide a bank guarantee for the said sum. Just because investigation is not completed, it cannot be said that petitioner is not entitled to claim money seized from his possession. In the same way if the bank account is not defreezed, he may find difficult to transact day to day affairs. Moreover, it is stated that his salary is being credited to the said account. In this view the bank account can also be defreezed with a condition that the petitioner should maintain the balance as it stood on the date of freezing. With these observations I find a case to interfere with the impugned order. Therefore, the following:

ORDER

Petition is allowed.

The order of the Court of XXIII Additional City Civil and

¶51

Sessions Judge & Special Judge (P.C Act) Bengaluru (CCH-24) is hereby set aside. Application is allowed.

¶52

Respondent is hereby directed to return cash of

¶53

Rs.37,49,650 and to communicate to the bank to de-freeze the bank account of the petitioner. The petitioner is subjected to following conditions:

¶54

Petitioner shall provide the photographs of the currency notes so that same may be produced before the Court during the trial. He must execute an acknowledgment for having received the cash by mentioning the serial numbers of the currency notes returned to him.

¶55

Petitioner shall provide bank guarantee for a sum of Rs.37,49,650/-.

¶56

Petitioner is permitted to operate the bank account by maintaining the balance as on 27.08.2020.

Sd/JUDGE

PKN/JY

SHKJ: CRL.RP.NO.1347/2021 24.01.2022

¶61

(VIDEO CONFERENCING)

¶62

ORDER ON ‘FOR BEING SPOKEN TO’

¶63

It is submitted on behalf of the petitioner that the petitioner is not in a position to provide bank guarantee for a sum of Rs.37,49,650/- as the bank insists on the petitioner to deposit this much of amount for providing bank guarantee and therefore the learned counsel for the petitioner submits that this condition be suitably modified to enable the petitioner to provide security of immovable property.

¶64

Counsel for the respondent Sri P.N.Manmohan, has no objection for modification of the said condition, but he submits that in case the security of immovable property is offered, the petitioner must provide full particulars for verification and if it is found that all the details are correct, then only the security of immovable property be ordered to be accepted.

¶65

¶66

Having regard to the fact that the petitioner may find it difficult to provide bank guarantee, the condition may be suitably modified and the petitioner may be directed to provide security of immovable property. The property to be offered as guarantee should either stand in the name of the petitioner or any of his close relatives and it must be free from all encumbrances. In this view the condition No.2 in the order dated 13.01.2022 is modified as below:

¶67

“The petitioner is permitted to provide security of immovable property whose value is not less than Rs.37,49,650/-.

¶68

The trial Court before accepting the security of immovable property, shall call for the report from the police concerned to ascertain whether the property offered as security is free from all encumbrances or not.”

¶69

¶70

Accordingly, condition No.2 in the order dated 13.01.2022 is modified.

¶71

Sd/JUDGE

¶72

KMV

Sri S S Nagesh v. the State of Karnataka

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Sri S S Nagesh 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 B G Venkata Reddy Vs Sri Manikanta

Power Track Vs Smt Roopa v Hubli

Smt Sharadamma N Vs Sri Manjunatha B S

Mr. Manoj Kumar M R Vs State of Karnataka

Bettashetty Vs the State of Karnataka

Sri Papaiah Reddy @ Ashok Reddy Vs Smt Amaravathi