Allowed

Zakir Hussain v. State by Harihara Town Police Station

Karnataka HC4 Nov 2024CRL.P/9238/2022

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

Petitioner filed a criminal petition challenging orders rejecting his application for interim custody of seized ornaments. Court allowed the petition, permitting the petitioner to produce original bills to prove ownership.

What did the court decide?

Petitioner permitted to produce original bills proving ownership of items in PF No.56/2016; Trial Court directed to consider application afresh.

Zakir Hussain Vs State by Harihara Town Police Station — Property and Title | Karnataka HC (2024)

¶1

1 - NC: 2024:KHC:44093 CRL.P No. 9238 of 2022

¶2

IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU

¶3

DATED THIS THE 4^TH DAY OF NOVEMBER, 2024

¶4

BEFORE

¶5

THE HON'BLE MRS JUSTICE M G UMA CRIMINAL PETITION NO. 9238 OF 2022

¶6

BETWEEN:

¶7

ZAKIR HUSSAIN, S/O LATE SARMASWALI, AGED ABOUT 43 YEARS, FDC IN TREASURY DEPARTMENT, R/O AMARAVATHI NAGARA, HARIHARA TALUK, DAVANAGERE DISTRICT - 577 101

¶8

…PETITIONER

¶9

(BY SMT. SHRUTHI S.P., FOR SRI. VINAYA KEERTHY .M., ADVOCATE)

¶10

Digitally signed by NANDINI B G Location: high court of karnataka

¶11

AND:

¶12

STATE BY HARIHARA TOWN POLICE STATION, HARIHARA TOWN POLICE STATION, (BY PUBLIC PROSECUTOR, HIGH COURT)

¶13

…RESPONDENT

¶14

(BY SRI. RAJAT SUBRAMANYAM, HCGP)

¶15

THIS CRL.P IS FILED U/S 482 CR.PC PRAYING TO SET ASIDE THE ORDER PASSED BY I ADDL. DISTRICT AND SESSIONS JUDGE, DAVANAGERE ON 13.02.2020 IN CRL.RP.NO.10/2017 AND SET ASIDE THE ORDER DATED 23.11.2016 IN CR.NO.23/2016 IN CR.NO.23/2016, C.C.NO.1004/2016 PASSED BY THE ADDL. CIVIL JUDGE AND J.M.F.C AT HARIHARA AND ALLOW THE APPLICATION FILED UNDER 457 FILED BY THE PETITIONER.

¶16

THIS CRL.P, COMING ON FOR ADMISSION, THIS DAY, ORDER WAS MADE THEREIN AS UNDER:

¶17

CORAM: HON'BLE MRS JUSTICE M G UMA

¶18

2 - NC: 2024:KHC:44093 CRL.P No. 9238 of 2022

¶19

ORAL ORDER

¶20

The petitioner being the informant is impugning the order dated 23.11.2016 passed by the learned Additional Civil Judge and JMFC, Harihara, rejecting the application under Section 457 of Cr.PC, seeking interim custody of the gold ornaments described at Item Nos. 2 to 24 in PF No.56/2016 in C.C.No.1004/2016, which was confirmed in Crl.R.P.No.10/2017 on the file of learned I Additional District & Sessions Judge, Davanagere, vide order dated 13.02.2020.

¶21

Brief facts of the case are that, the petitioner is the informant who filed the first information contending that on 20.02.2016 when he was away with his family members, he received a phone call that the door of his house was broke open. Immediately he came back and found that gold and silver articles kept in the godrej were stolen. On the basis of the first information, the FIR came to be registered for the offences punishable under Sections 380, 454 and 457 of IPC against unknown persons. During investigation, it is stated that several items of gold and silver articles were seized by the police in Crime No. 23/2016 and PF No.56/2016 came to be submitted to the Trial Court.

¶22

3 - NC: 2024:KHC:44093 CRL.P No. 9238 of 2022

¶23

The petitioner filed the application under Section

¶24

457 of Cr.PC seeking release of item Nos. 2 to 24 mentioned in PF No.56/2016. The said application came to be rejected by the Trial Court vide order dated 23.11.2016. Being aggrieved by the same, Cr.R.P.No.10/2017 came to be filed before learned 1^st Additional District & Sessions Judge, Davanagere. The said revision also came to be dismissed vide order dated 13.02.2020. Therefore, the petitioner is before this Court seeking to allow the application filed by him under Section 457 of Cr.PC and to release items Nos. 2 to 24 in his favour.

¶25

Heard Smt. Shruthi S.P. learned counsel for Sri. Vinaya Keerthy. M, learned counsel for the petitioner, and Sri. Rajat Subramanyam, learned High Court Government Pleader for respondent. Perused the materials on records.

¶26

Learned counsel for the petitioner contended that

¶27

the application filed by the petitioner before the Trial Court came to be rejected solely on the ground that there is difference in mentioning the weight of the ornaments and that the petitioner has not produced any document to show that the same belong to him. Learned counsel submits that the

¶28

4 - NC: 2024:KHC:44093 CRL.P No. 9238 of 2022

¶29

petitioner is having original bills for having purchased those items and seeks permission to produce the same before the Trial Court with a direction to the Trial Court to consider those documents and to pass appropriate orders.

¶30

Learned counsel submits that even though there is rival claim in respect of few items of ornaments by Muthoot Finance Limited, the petitioner is not seeking release of those items in his favour and hence, prays for allowing the petition.

¶31

Learned High Court Government Pleader for respondent has no objection to allow the petition, with a direction to the Trial Court to permit the petitioner to produce the original bills pertaining to the items which were seized by the Investigating Officer and to consider the same for passing appropriate orders on the application.

¶32

In view of the rival contentions urged by the learned counsel for both the parties, the point that would arise for my consideration is:

¶33

“Whether the Petitioner has made out any grounds to allow the petition?"

¶34

5 - NC: 2024:KHC:44093 CRL.P No. 9238 of 2022

¶35

My answer to the above point is in ‘Affirmative’ for the following:

¶36

R E A S O N S

¶37

It is the contention of the petitioner who is the informant that item Nos. 2 to 24 were stolen from his house by the accused, which were recovered during investigation. Therefore, an application under Section 457 of Cr.PC was filed seeking interim custody of those valuable gold and silver articles. The application came to be rejected by the Trial Court by observing that there is difference in the weight of the ornaments and the petitioner has not produced any documents to claim ownership over the valuables. But now it is the contention of the petitioner that he is having the original bills to prove that those gold and silver articles were purchased by him and he is ready to produce the same before the Trial Court. When such original documents are sought to be produced, even the respondent is not having any objection for the Trial Court to reconsider the prayer for interim custody of those items of properties. Therefore, I am of the opinion that the petitioner may be permitted to produce the original documents to prove

¶38

6 - NC: 2024:KHC:44093 CRL.P No. 9238 of 2022

¶39

ownership over item Nos. 2 to 24 in PF No.56/2016 and the Trial Court to consider the application filed under Section 457 of Cr.PC afresh.

¶40

Accordingly, I answer the above point in the Affirmative and proceed to pass the following:

¶41

ORDER

¶42

(i) The petition is allowed.

¶43

(ii) The impugned order dated 23.11.2016 on the file of the learned Additional Civil Judge and JMFC, Harihara is set aside.

¶44

The petitioner is permitted to produce additional documents i.e., the original bills pertaining to item Nos. 2 to 24 in PF No.56/2016 before the Trial Court.

¶45

The Trial Court is directed to consider the application afresh in the light of the documents that may be produced before it.

¶46

Sd/(M G UMA) JUDGE

¶47

SPV List No.: 2 Sl No.: 28

Zakir Hussain v. State by Harihara Town Police Station

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Zakir Hussain v. State by Harihara Town Police Station

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

Mahesh R Vs B M Mahesh

Sri. Madan Srinivas Vs Smt. Vishalakshi Bhat

Mohammed Touhid Vs State by Kengari Ps

Rathnamma Vs the State of Karnataka

Vincent Vs the State by

Mr Dayananda Sagar B L Vs the State of Karnataka