IN THE men COURT 01:' KARNATAKA, BANGAL{')ReEi_"e._V_
QATED THIS THE 73* DAY err MAY 20<1§"" ' 3-]:
$EFORE
"me a0N'eLe MR. JUSTICE K.I*é;AKESHf§V2ar~E.2iRAYAI*é.§ ' I: T 1:'
CRIMINAL PE'F1'I'iO.Pi Ne. }1."36£$"GF g53<)5%:43;..'
BETWEEN:
M] s.Manappura:£n General Finazicef ' V'
And Leasing Limited, . .
No.262,s0rtEoa:?;,e.e-e g
Banashankarii sfiige; " ' L'
Hanumantfianagar, "
Banga1¢r¢re,569 V. ._
Reptd. by its _Ni.3:1ager_
Sri.S.Bim,1.* V ~ I=e'I'meNER
(By Sri. av. 1§age%é,h4,.,%Adv¢ea:e3 '
we
State: of W * . V ".9
e._By the Statizin Hei;§seA'e{)flicer,
' =__ Ha.:1uma11i:};an;agmfPoIice Station,
*B.anfg'a1e-re. u " ...RESPONDENT
rpetition filed under Section 482 of (3r.P.C.,
te direct’ the learned I Add}. Chief Metropolitan
Esiétgfstxate, Bangalore, tc permit the petitioner to get
. ‘ – ..itse3f represented through anyone of its authorised
representative inciuding the one who is presently before
£3.16 ceurt, in the matter of perfornaing of all the duties
fie
and obligations cast upon the petitioner under the order
dated 12.8.09 passed in the case, on the applicggtiota
filed by the petitioner under Section 451/457 of “the
Cr.P.C., seeking grant of the custody of the jeW¢:li*§( ‘m’Izi
gold ingots seized in Cr.No.330/08 ‘.j’.3,_t”
Hanumantlzanagar P.S. Bangalore, “a’i”:
naught the order dated 7.3.2009 _the’:” ._
application filed by the pctitionerv:Go£!1pax}y. M — ., ‘4
This petition coxrlmg on for .’
court made the foIiowing:-
o R no.sVigv.o
Heard the fo:r:TVV”1;;é_i§»1;ioner and also
learned =
2: I}§1—-ffiCd under Section 482 of
Cr.P.C., ‘ztjzieo sought for quashjng the
_ orcief datod 7;.?,s2oog passed by the 1 Add}. Chief
Bangalore, rejecting the memo
1 ” ‘ ‘ ._ psfifioner.
A 3. ” the complaint made by the petitioner-
a case was registered by Hmumm
_,V_p:1ice in Cr.No.330/2009. I311ri:ag investigation, certain
&/
gold articles were seized by the investigating
the application filed by the l
represented by its eegenal T
M.N., the learned Magstrate -by ordef dated
ordered release of the gold: l_ filfiivfiintefim
custody of the he certain
conditions. Oneeofh the Regional
the Special
a11f.’i”}€}I’f1S€v1ti§5i1:::t)Vf:«1.a,fE;bg!3′ receiving the seized
gold al*tiele’s No. 146 and 148 of 2008.
It appeafs.._4_by of the order of the learned
the”~Vse_i_d_.P1’ashanth..M.N. ceased to be the
‘}?.egie{:al’M’di§3ger of the petitioner-Company. Therefore,
filed a memo before the learned
Maéstrejzey on 27.2.2009 bringing to the notice of the
A 5′ that Frashanth M.N., who represented the
l’ eompany in the application ceased to be in service of the
Company and therefore it has authorised its Divisional
Manager Bmu.S. to receive the geld articles fiem the
&~/
court and requested the court to hand over the seized
golci articles to the said Binu S. The leameel Magistrate
by order dated 7.3.2009 rejected the said mange-_ K
the ground. that court has no power to V’
order. This order is sought to” ”
petition.
2. There is no serious fhe date
of the application fileti for return of the
seized flies one Prashanth
MN. Wes of the Company and he
had repleeerited in the said application.
Prashanth M.N. ceased to be in
_it’h.e’_ ” ‘.3e1*s>ffiee”e’ the company. Therefore, a special”
}:was given to Binu S by the company for
seized gold articles fiom the court. In the
‘ filed before the learned Magsnate, the petitioner»
V’ did not seek for review of the earlier order nor
the petitioner company sought recalling of earlier order.
4
fly
3. Therefore, the petition is allowed. TheV.V”c§f'<i¢r
dated 7.3.2009 passed by the Iearzmd
Cr.Ne.330 of 2003 (c.c.No.2o;4;2oo9;dis;;e1~¢b;g =
quashed. The learned Magishfitc is
over the seized gold a1'tic1V<_e-.'«;.._V to Ifihdgisnal '
Manager of the Company special
authorisation as _Mag'st:rate by
erder dated 1.12.2008.~'a1idf':si1bj¢ci:é..to.:.§$'£}idr conditiens
contained inwfiitxgz I V
Sd/~
Tudge
M821