Dismissed

Xavier v. G v K v Kunhikannan

Karnataka HC3 Jan 2023CRL.RP/816/2018

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

In this criminal revision petition, the High Court of Karnataka reviewed the release of material objects in a theft trial. Finding that the seized items did not match the complained-of stolen items, the Court upheld the lower courts' order granting custody of the materials to the respondent.

What did the court decide?

Revision petition dismissed; impugned orders of Trial Court and Sessions Court upholding respondent's custody of material objects stand.

Xavier v G Vs K v Kunhikannan — Property and Title | Karnataka HC (2023)

¶1

¶2

CRL.RP No. 816 of 2018

¶3

IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU DATED THIS THE 3^RD DAY OF JANUARY, 2023

¶4

BEFORE

¶5

THE HON'BLE MR JUSTICE R. NATARAJ CRIMINAL REVISION PETITION NO. 816 OF 2018

¶6

BETWEEN:

¶7

XAVIER V.G. S/O LATE MR. V.P. GEORGE, AGED ABOUT 43 YEARS, R/AT NO.18-2-16/7, BEHIND MOTI MAHAL, ATTAVARA, MANGALORE.

¶8

…PETITIONER

¶9

(BY SRI. SACHIN B.S., ADVOCATE)

¶10

AND:

¶11

K.V. KUNHIKANNAN S/O LATE K.V. RAMAN, AGED ABOUT 63 YEARS, PROPRIETOR, BINDU JEWELRY, COURT ROAD, KASARAGOD, KERALA STATE-671121.

¶12

Digitally signed by SUMA Location: HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA

¶13

THE STATE

¶14

REP. BY THE SUB INSPECTOR OF POLICE, SOUTH POLICE STATION, MANGALORE-575001.

¶15

…RESPONDENTS

¶16

(BY SRI. K. RANJAN KUMAR, ADVOCATE FOR RESPONDENT NO.1;

¶17

SRI. KRISHNA KUMAR K.K., HIGH COURT GOVERNMENT PLEADER FOR RESPONDENT NO.2)

¶18

¶19

CRL.RP No. 816 of 2018

¶20

THIS CRL.RP IS FILED UNDER SECTION 397 READ WITH SECTION 401 OF THE CODE OF CRIMINAL PROCEDURE, 1973 PRAYING TO SET ASIDE THE IMPUGNED ORDER DATED 13.04.2018 IN CRL.A. NO.251/2013, ON THE FILE OF THE II ADDITIONAL DISTRICT AND SESSIONS JUDGE, D.K., MANGALORE AND IMPUGNED ORDER DATED 18.07.2013, PASSED IN CRL.MISC.NO.6/2008 ON THE FILE OF THE 1^ST ADDITIONAL SENIOR CIVIL JUDGE AND CJM., MANGALORE, CONSEQUENTLY ALLOW CRL.A.NO.251/2013.

¶21

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

¶22

ORDER

¶23

The petitioner has filed this revision petition challenging

¶24

the correctness of the order dated 18.07.2013 passed by the I Additional Senior Civil Judge and CJM., Mangalore, (henceforth referred to as ‘the Trial Court’) in Crl. Misc. Case No.6/2008 by which, an application filed by the respondent No.1 herein under Section 452 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 (for short, ‘the Cr.P.C.’) was entertained and M.O. Nos.1 and 2 were ordered to be released in favour of the respondent No.1 herein. The petitioner has also challenged the Judgment dated 13.04.2018 passed by the II Additional District and Sessions

¶25

¶26

CRL.RP No. 816 of 2018

¶27

Judge, D.K., Mangaluru, (for short, ‘the Sessions Court’) in Criminal Appeal No.251/2013.

¶28

The petitioner lodged a complaint on 02.07.2005 alleging that some persons had committed theft of gold ornaments from his house. Based on this, the jurisdictional Police registered Crime No.235/2005. A chargesheet was filed for offences punishable under Sections 457 and 380 of the Indian Penal Code, 1860 (for short, 'the IPC').

¶29

Based on the statement of the accused, certain gold ornaments were seized from the custody of respondent No.1 herein. After the trial, the Trial Court acquitted the accused of the said offences. Consequent thereto, the petitioner herein and respondent No.1 herein filed separate applications seeking release of the material objects that were seized by the jurisdictional Police. The Trial Court after considering the material on record, held that the respondent No.1 herein is entitled to the custody of M.O. Nos.1 and 2 while the petitioner

¶30

herein was entitled to the custody of M.O. No.3.

¶31

¶32

CRL.RP No. 816 of 2018

¶33

Being aggrieved by the said order, the petitioner herein filed Criminal Appeal No.251/2013 which was dismissed by the Sessions Court.

¶34

Being aggrieved by the same, the present revision petition is filed.

¶35

The learned counsel for the revision petitioner submitted that in the First Information lodged by the petitioner, he had specifically described the ornaments that the accused had stolen. He submitted that the ornaments were recovered from the respondent No.1 based on the statement of the accused. He submitted that the Trial Court without considering the fact that M.O. Nos.1 and 2 corresponded to the ornaments that were described in the complaint, rejected the application filed by the petitioner for custody of M.O. Nos.1 and 2.

¶36

Per contra, the learned counsel for respondent No.1 submitted that M.O. Nos.1 to 3 were seized from the custody of respondent No.1 and the Trial Court after verifying that M.O. No.3 was embossed with the name of the wife of the petitioner,

¶37

had released it to the petitioner, while M.O. Nos.1 and 2 did not correspond to the description given by the petitioner in the

¶38

¶39

CRL.RP No. 816 of 2018

¶40

complaint. He, therefore, submitted that since M.O. Nos.1 and 2 were seized from the custody of respondent No.1, the Trial Court as well as the First Appellate Court were justified in holding that respondent No.1 is entitled to the custody of M.O. Nos.1 and 2.

¶41

I have considered the submissions made by the learned counsel for the petitioner and the learned counsel for respondent No.1.

¶42

The Trial Court considered the claim of the petitioner, which was based on an estimate (Ex.P6) prepared by PW.3 in respect of a gold chain, a black bead chain and a golden ring. The Trial Court held that this estimate was not addressed to the petitioner herein and therefore, it was inconsequential. Further, it held that the description of the gold ornaments belonging to the petitioner as mentioned in the complaint at Ex.P1 did not correspond with M.O. Nos.1 and 2. Consequently, the Trial Court released M.O. No.3 to the petitioner and M.O Nos.1 and 2 to respondent No.1.

¶43

A perusal of the complaint, which is enclosed with FIR - Ex.P4, lodged by the petitioner discloses the details of the

¶44

¶45

CRL.RP No. 816 of 2018

¶46

gold ornaments that the accused had stolen and same are as

¶47

under:

¶48

"1) ¸ÀÄªÀiÁgÀÄ 6 ¥ÀªÀ£ï vÀÆPÀzÀ §AUÁgÀzÀ vÁ½¸ÀgÀ-1. EzÀgÀ°è vÁ½ EzÀÄÝ, ¸ÀtÚ PÁæ¸ï EgÀÄvÀÛzÉ.

¶49

§AUÁgÀzÀ gÉÆÃ¥ï ZÉÊ£ï MAzÀÄ. EzÀgÀ°è PÁæ¸ï EzÀÄÝ, ¸ÀÄªÀiÁgÀÄ 5 ¥ÀªÀ£ï vÀÆPÀ EgÀÄvÀÛzÉ.

¶50

§AUÁgÀzÀ GAUÀÄgÀªÉÇAzÀÄ. EzÀgÀ°è "RAGHIN" JAzÀÄ

¶51

§gÉ¢gÀÄvÀÛzÉ. EzÀgÀ vÀÆPÀ ¸ÀÄªÀiÁgÀÄ 1½ ¥ÀªÀ£ï.

¶52

MAzÀÄ £ÀªÀgÀvÀßzÀ PÀ®ÄèUÀ½gÀÄªÀ GAUÀÄgÀ MAzÀÄ. EzÀÄ ¸ÀÄªÀiÁgÀÄ 1½ ¥ÀªÀ£ï vÀÆPÀzÁÝVzÉ."

¶53

Admittedly, M.O. No.1 is a black bead chain while

¶54

M.O. No.2 is a gold chain which does not have a cross. Even

¶55

otherwise, complaint enclosed with FIR - Ex.P4 was not in respect of a black bead chain. Therefore, M.O. Nos.1 and 2 did not correspond to the gold ornaments that were stolen from the house of the petitioner. It is not much in dispute that M.O. Nos.1 to 3 were seized from the custody of respondent No.1. Therefore, the Trial Court was justified in rejecting the application of the petitioner herein for custody of M.O. Nos.1 and 2. However, since M.O. Nos.1 and 2 were seized from the

¶56

¶57

CRL.RP No. 816 of 2018

¶58

custody of the respondent No.1, the Trial Court as well as the First Appellate Court were justified in granting custody of the said M.O. Nos.1 and 2 to the respondent No.1 herein. There is no illegality in the impugned order passed by the Trial Court as well as the judgment of the Appellate Court warranting interference by this Court.

¶59

Hence, this revision petition lacks merits and is dismissed.

¶60

Sd/JUDGE

¶61

SMA

¶62

List No.: 1 Sl No.: 44

Xavier v. G v K v Kunhikannan

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Xavier v. G v K v Kunhikannan

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

Mr U K Venkatesh Vs Mr K N Sreenivasa

K. Raja Vs v. Prabhakar

Gold Coins Hotels and Resorts Limited Vs Sri Mohammed Nissar

Mr. K. Sathish Kumar Vs Sri Ashok Kumar

T H Manjunatha Vs v Venkateshwara

Mr. Manoj K.V Vs Sri. K Rajesh Nayak