ORDER
Ramanna, J.
1. Heard
2. This revision is directed against the order dated 17.4.2001 passed by the Special Judge, Bangalore Urban and Rural District, Bangalore City, in Crl. Mis No. 359/2001 whereby the Special Judge allowed the application filed by the respondent and directed the revision petitioner – Lokayukta to release cash of Rs. 1,03,250/- to the interim custody of this respondent on his executing an indemnity bond with one solvent surety. Feeling aggrieved by the said order the State has come up with this revision mainly on the ground that the cash ordered to be released by the Special Judge is required for identification.
3. The case of revision petitioner – State is that the respondent is working as a Revenue Inspector. On 4.1.2000 the Lokayukta Police have raided the house of the respondent and seized the cash, articles, documents, etc. and found property worth Rs. 85,50,000/- disproportionate to his known sources of income. Therefore the cash of Rs. 1,03,250/- have been seized from the possession of the accused from his house. When the case was under investigation the respondent herein has filed and application before the Special Judge for release of the cash. Accordingly, after hearing both sides the application came to be allowed and the said amount was ordered to be released to the interim custody of the respondent accused. In this behalf the learned High Court Govt. Pleader submitted the cash is very much required for identification during trial, but the Trial Court without taking note of this fact has directed the revision petitioner – State to release the said cash to the interim custody of the respondent herein, which is against the settled principle of law. And further it is maintained that the Trial Court has not insisted this respondent to furnish a bank guarantee for the likesum. Therefore, the order under revision is illegal and incorrect.
4. On the other hand the Learned Counsel for the respondent submitted that the objection filed by the State before the Special Judge does not disclosed that the said amount was very much required for identification during Trial and this is the first time they have taken such a ground before the Court. The objection filed by the State to the application filed by this respondent does not disclose that they have got any objection. Therefore, the respondent being the revenue inspector is having huge property and his wife is also income tax assessee, therefore the amount ordered to be released to his custody is legal and there is no perverse finding recorded by the Special Judge. In support of his contention the learned counsel drawn my attention to page 5 of the panchanama which discloses the Item No. 87, cash of Rs. 1,03,250/- of various denominations, apart from that the Lokayukta police seized in all 151 items of properties moveables and other valuable properties. It is for the State to prove about the allegations made in the complaint and since the respondent has admitted that the cash belongs to him and no purpose would be served if the cash is not released. Accordingly the Trial Court has rightly released the cash for the interim custody to the respondent herein. In support of his contention the learned counsel for the respondent has relied on a decision of the Supreme Court reported in the case of SUNDERBHAI AMBALAL DESI v. STATE OF GUJARAT 2002 (8) Supreme 525 wherein the Supreme Court held that:
“Section 451 clearly empowers the Court to pass appropriate orders with regard to such property, such as-
(1) for the proper custody pending conclusion of the inquiry or Trial;
(2) to order it to be sold or otherwise disposed of, after
recording such evidence as it think necessary;
(3) if the property is subject to speedy and natural decay, to disposed of the same.
To avoid State’s liability in case of loss or misappropriation of such articles held to avoid such a situation, in our view, powers under Section 451 Cr. P.C. should be exercised promptly and at the earliest.
For valuables and currency notes held, in no set of circumstances, the Investigating Officer should keep such articles in custody for a longer period for the purpose of investigation and identification.”
5. I have perused the records.
6. Having regard to the facts and circumstances of the case and the arguments putforth by both sides the point that arises for my consideration and decision is:
(a) Whether the order passed by the Special Judge is perverse, incorrect or illegal?
(b) If so, whether it calls for interference?
7. It is an admitted fact that as on the date of raid the respondent was working as a revenue inspector and the officers of the Lokayuktha have conducted a raid on his house and recovered huge properties including moveables, cash, etc. Item No. 87 is cash of Rs. 1,03,250/- recovered during the raid from the house of the respondent herein. Even after lapse of one year the revision petitioner – State has not filed charge sheet therefore the respondent filed an application before the Special Judge with a prayer to release Item No. 87 i.e, cash of Rs. 1,03,250/- to his interim custody. The learned Special Judge while disposing of the petition has rightly observed that the objection filed by the prosecution does not disclose that they have got any objection to the application filed by the respondent-accused to release the property to his interim custody. Since the respondent himself has admitted about the seizure of the properties and the cash of Rs. 1,03,250/- denominations were also mentioned in the mahazar, therefore the question of identification of the property does not arise even at the time of trial. If the amount is so required to be produced for confiscation the Court can direct this respondent to produce the cash of Rs. 1,03,250/- for purpose of confiscation. In fact the order passed by the Trial Court is a well reasoned one and the Special Judge, after considering all the aspects of the matter, has ordered the release of the amount of Rs. 1,03,250/- to the interim custody of the respondent-herein on executing a personal indemnity bond for the likesum with one surety. It is submitted that though the indemnity has been executed the complainant State failed to release the property i.e., cash of Rs. 1,03,250/- to the interim custody of the respondent is unjustified. It is the duty of the complainant to obey the orders passed by the Spl. Judge. If the cash seized has not been released so far then the complainant shall release it immediately. Since the respondent is a government servant and he has put in several years of service in the revenue department and considering the fact that his wife is an income tax assessee that the question of directing him to furnish bank guarantee does not arise and according the contention of the learned Government Pleader is not accepted. It is seen that after passing of the order the respondent-herein has already executed an indemnity bond and has also furnished one surety to the likesum. Therefore, viewed from any angle, I do not find any perverse or illegal finding recorded by the Trial Court. Hence this revision petition is liable to be dismissed.
8. Accordingly this revision petition is dismissed.