High Court Karnataka High Court

Devamma W/O Late K H Halappa Gowda vs State Of Karnataka on 5 June, 2009

Karnataka High Court
Devamma W/O Late K H Halappa Gowda vs State Of Karnataka on 5 June, 2009
Author: Jawad Rahim


EN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BANGALORE’

1

a:3A”rED THIS THE 5?” DAY cur JUNE 2oo9___”–

BEFORE

THE HGf~i’Bi.E MR. :us1’zcsA:ntiwA9a:AH1&:4§LkA A

EETWEEN :

(ay Sri M ac5%bi§A1§H%gk%Amz3%%j}

AND I

3.

QEVAMMA, wzo Lfi»;”§’.E K ie€’¥iAi.A??A. sowua
50 YEARS M
ago BAQAGODB, AAVENAH.€x’L5.I {P”w’:¥’_.:’.-T}’V_
SAGAR. TALUK _ ‘
sfimoea i31sTR1<.*T '

' % '..;"A?PELLANT

s'fAfrE.or= %
SAGAR RURAL "PC3,.iCE REP STATE PUBLKZ
PRcs£cuT9amGH~couRT auxmmcs,

J _;Bfi:¥%!.GALC§'R_EV" %

_. ha. 4' _.

f k XIENU }¢&NuKuMAa
Si’€¥.”?:’3§W3VEE;’VASHETTY
’19 ‘mas, snerrv CASTE

RIG HEEGAODU VILLAGE NOW R/O

HQTEL 3A1 PRAKASH BOMMANAHALLI
H€}SUR ROM),

AA ‘ ‘EANGALQRE

NKUMAR @ SUBEWDRAKUMAR

S/’Q BASAVAIAH

21 YEARS
R,/0 SERVANT QQARTERS,

W

JR

sf.

VZCTGRIA HOSPITAL COMPOUND.

BANGALGRE 2

4 SHIVA @ SHIVANNA

20 YEARS, Sit) KARISHETTY

RIO DOEFDEBAGALUR

VILLAGE, T EARASIPURA TQ

MYSORE DESTRICT ROW R/C? 3R9 CROSS
VINAYAKA NAGAR, WIL-50!’! GARDEN
BANGALORE-27

5 DEVARA3

sic: RAMEGGWDA
25 YEARS ~
Rio CHINNAIANA PALYA. % ‘
Now we 14TH mass, 411-! max MAIN.’
CHINNPPANAPLYA, V —

BANGALQRE % V

6 RAMESH aaau @; M50
Sm ;%§L:mzvsw;<.–:§r2a1=PA M
22 YEARS.

RID NCi”~~’¥.2; 151’ss%c:ms5, 5TH MAIN
LAKKASAR1.£)FtA
B£;?€GALORE”3Q ‘
* ~~~~~ RESPGNDENTS
may 3:: ma s:saaAH:~zAwrA BHAT, HCGP FOR R1;
;-531:3 Aza;:rw, ‘Am. FDR. 1+3 & R.-6;
sax SHIVfixKU,W\.fi,”‘ADV. ma R-5;

R-2 3:1-4 5REi.SERVED)

;,%;:m,.Ap:=4sAL%§s FILED UIS. 454 C.R.P.C. av me ABIVOCATE
‘ _’ ” V .E-‘{33R Af»’?ELLAHT PRAYING THAT THIS HON’Bi..E CCHJRT
4_M;-M .BE”~:’-PLEASE!) T0 351′ ASIDE THE omen ma 29.6.01

F’a§aS’$E’:’}~”BY THE ADQL. 5.3., SHIMGGA IN SC.NO. 46/96

H .___AND THAT FURTHER BE PLEASE!) T0 GRSER TO RETURN

_ ..’ui”r=§~EV ARTICLES AT M.O5.3. T0 28 WHICH WERE
EELQFQGMG TO THE COMPLAINA?\iTfAP5’E{.iANT AND THAT
“WERE STATE’) IN THE COMPLAINT FILED ON THE BATE OF

N”

4
3

INCISENCE ITSELF IN THE INTEREST OF 3USTICE AND
EQUITY.

This eeeeei comma en fer orders this day, the

defivered the feilewéng

LLLD,.G_fi_E_H.I

Tfiis epeeai is against the erdeijpaeeed ‘if-2

eatee 29.6.2061 en the fife of.fise_ditIe’fi.a_’§'”SessEe’ee V.

Shimega, erdering cenfiseatien1v’V%’eef’njevebie:eiroeerties,
Uewms, etc.) seized émeifrjgj arse ‘erveduced
daring triaieiarkeees i’v1.Q.$…i_t_e ‘V

2. 2 ;1m méaee gams fer both eides and

berusee reeerde. ‘

3. 4e§Ees§en3efit$”2 :5 fiwwere chereesheeted and tried

“vj._fe’?i~’ .tfi”eaeffegrieee.’_;;nde§9m§ectien 395, me. it’: s.c.-49:95 er:

theVflfixeeiticnai Seseiens iudee, Shimega.

_Cerzéi’;i_erir:e’ evieence tendered by the preseeutien

‘ “”.5l”.’A”–.i:§1rea;§h z2v.Z:’witnesses and 19 decumerats, the ieamed t:=ia§

fimee. feund their evidence insufficieet te cenvict the

f waecfised fer the said crffence. Censeauentsy, by judgment

eidated 29.é.2001 ail ef them have been acqaitteé.

4

4. amine triai, it appears the aepeiient fiied an

aeeiicetion under Sectiee 451, Cr.?.C. seeking reieese ef .

eawvle” “L _
the preperiy seized pg irsvestieeticm and erodutee inf-ejiei,

marked as ?v1.0s.1 to 28. The ieernecf

dispeeina cf the case firsaiiy, was necessariiy*1.§:§eqi;£Va5ed”%tee.’

pass an ereer with regard to dise’6éei”ef;-i:he.;<eif§:€;~e§ftv7ae"*'

required under Section 452, C_r.P.C.a '.__ thebeeiied eareeee}'~.

he has taken into :ensieeretie'n'e:.V:fee ex}iee_:1::e by 'V

PW1-fievernree vieepeiiefif ' "–.15;eree1")',"* PW3
(Tharereafineaewda), P§£*4..'{8'.eP§i'§5eejre.e:evfieieh) arid PW5

{i<eieeee) ree:a2*.:*.§:;f:e. eweefiefieiee 'eroeer=ties.

S. rieticed from the evidence ef

PW1 that éeehae ie§'6A'.:ie.'i:i§': in raped: of items at 55. Nes.1

.—__te ~ei§_?:'e-rxeeel' ?'e:'3,___?W4 and PW5 cieimed ewfiershie cf

'H;.'i;*s,2z)A_(e.}:efie.__2a(b) (four articles). in area? to decide

ef'VfihjeVAi§%eeeriies, ieareed judge eetieee fievamme

*VVwfie.44"e;}f'e§ei:f.V she iest the ereeerty, had net furnished

'A ':f.d"efe-i.§e ef the items test, in the cerepleint submittee by her

— er: the basis of which investieatier: was taker: en.

T lfwes eise neticzed eurine investieetierz that the 1.0. had

gm/”

5

net saecificaiiy fauna that articia vecaverm during

irwmtieaticn frcm varieus perscms and rriaca wese

preaerfieé beionaina ta the appeiiant. Conseque:j;tijf;j:§’§}a§ V V.

iearned juéaa hr:-aid £6.05. its 28 cansistina of a:’;?-:i_:§,

and ather valuaizaies, were Roi discl::éééd’*a$”–.bei;e’sifi’i’n§ té«’

the compiamant, and there was rm ;’f2a£é.fl a§ t:o9’V%1%z::iAa:a

such Ei’O’r)EFtEéS beicma ts her
noticed that Wis-3, 4 and ::iai:fi”c§§nér3i§ip ifi’ri”rv1«s;}éct cf
certain items, but since thé V§_r’oée~29§;iés were mat

subject matter <::f.tE$;:ej'::ares:;éfi:t;' #:§:§er11§i'3:f§;f;V!:,V vvitfiiés heifi that it

was f5ifi'i¢:§3'iffa"fif;3htfi5§iStfidj:"f¢ tfi_é"a;$peiiant.

6. hie: f”‘a.uil1:..cduiVdi ‘!5e _fei§i*:-ciiwith the said order cf the

iearfied Vtruiai j’u’dge*. the mandate of Sectian 452,

,j'”€:.”r,?.C§ }i:a;::A§1ctAbe ifir:–::–:*éé. The Saw provision requiras

Mar? :&i?_ifiqiJi:’?”i’r’ §r1.tfia! in any criminai court is concluded,

the :jé.é§?’i_V_r)%3ke such order as it thinks fit far the

_¢£is;posa2, ~~ éestruction, confiscaticm at’ defivery ta afzy

‘ciaiming is be entitled ta Ofl thereof Di’

‘ .__” o:thé;?wise, of any pfaperty ctr dacument fifcdcmed before it

if? its custcvdy, G!’ reaardifia which any offence appears

£y”E«1,/

6

tr: have been ciammitfed, er which has flee-:2 used fosfftse

cammission of any afience. S11 b-section (2) of S-.=g;t§ oV.:?1′:”A« V.

reauires that an order may be made under sub+:§c£i¢:§’Vj’

far deiivezjr cf 33?)’ praparty tr: anyhiétsai; ‘éiaimféfi.

entitiea’ ta the fifiésfiéfiiéi? tfierafof, énffigéfifiizéahgérbvv

arr canditicrr that he w.;ban.$, safitbj j’v:9E”‘;§g§?fh¢§ut
mreties, :6 the satisfasrijon cf” é:::3§_.3:’i’, ” ‘éngajgffna ta
resfare such prafierty to made under
szib-section (1)_ ‘en appeai cf
re-visim. ui:f_e:’.-i; éflcszurt cf sessions may,
ifrstead cf’itséff .ffié§;§ng’-j§§¢: a£er’V«efhder subsection (1),
direct tiéaa {> éjf’w.:::;ff§ss{;§iréred to the Chief Judiciai

Magistrate, “i»:a£:{é sfiéif fhéfafibon deaf with it if? the manner

..:;>rc3vig:iééa+; sectféfss :52′, 458 arid 459..

‘V§1’fii%gi.t’i{é.~s:§fiheme of Section #52, Cr.P.C., it is dear

V ‘!ii’!3’fA’%1.i4’f’_:VEi’$.~§~’!’:av§= £5 be iaroper adjudication cf the ciaim j3¥.it

‘ ” Q ‘ ~ . __fi:2»r”§va rd ” as-« T

— In that, the triai cmm may
§;;2._,..

such eviderzte with regard to cwnershépa sf

. “‘– g§_:f;};i:ez*ties’ and then pass the Currier. It is net necessary

“»»…’ .ihat the csrder be passafi simuitanecusiy with the finai

1′
eréer. The triai court can aofidutt saaarate proceedings
far the rmrpose sf passing tiwe orrder under Section 452,
C::P.€. either ‘aw itself er direct that the same be deaivuvith

by the Chief Judiciai fviaaistrate as required

sectiér; (3). Since it is ncticed that M.0s.1 t::;:–%2s’l éz?é

vaiuabie prafiverties, an order direfitim.4:enf¥§§éti§:rf: fo _thé.

state fifiéfi net appear to be just.

8. In the circumstances;’T.tha_% order,__i:*r:g;r’is§:i’é§&””is”:s§et ” L’

asiée. Hawever, the iearfieci :s.e§ic~_r1s».._juda’é’E:._dir§écted to
errtefizairz the 3p;::iicati62:’ _Jfiié.-:_£ vf{–.t§.y “‘5%ie,AV ;:ersan ciairnim

cwners£:ip,__ .ir:c2uirv and éeterrrine

awnersh%éipésses7s.i6:$ ‘*aféit’! ]i:5:§ss apprcpriam aréers as

reauifed unciér’-3Ae_V€ti’on ‘#15é(3), €:r.P.€:. ‘ma mpeai sands

. ‘ iiis,i§6:§éd5’7bf ifithese vféms.

Sd/-v
Iudge

_ “‘§,’ §5fi’3i’