Karnataka High Court
Mr. C T Anjanappa vs The Karnataka Lokayuktha on 10 August, 2023
Bench: S Rachaiah
-1-
CRL.RP No. 1290 of 2022
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU
DATED THIS THE 10TH DAY OF AUGUST, 2023
BEFORE
THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE S RACHAIAH
CRIMINAL REVISION PETITION NO.1290 OF 2022
BETWEEN:
MR. C T ANJANAPPA
AGED ABOUT 58 YEARS
S/O. THIPPANNA C
ASST. EXECUTIVE ENGINEER
PWD
PRESENTLY AT BOMMANAHALLI SUB-DIVISION
BBMP
BENGALURU - 560 068.
...PETITIONER
(BY SRI. CHANDRANATH ARIGA, ADVOCATE)
AND:
THE KARNATAKA LOKAYUKTHA
M S BUILDING, 1ST MAIN ROAD
AMBEDKAR VEEDHI
BANGALORE - 560 001.
AMENDED AS PER ORDER DATED 06.06.2023.
...RESPONDENT
(BY SRI. B B PATIL, SPL. PP)
THIS CRL.RP IS FILED U/S.397 R/W 401 CR.P.C,
PRAYING TO SET ASIDE THE ORDER DATED 13.04.2022 IN ACB
CRIME NO.01/2021 ON THE FILE OF THE COURT OF PRL.
DISTRICT AND SESSIONS JUDGE, DAVANAGERE; AND BE
PLEASED TO DIRECT RELEASE OF THE CASH AMOUNT OF
RS.46,00,000/- TO THE INTERIM CUSTODY OF THE
PETITIONER AND ETC.,
THIS CRIMINAL REVISION PETITION HAVING BEEN
HEARD AND RESERVED ON 23.06.2023, COMING ON FOR
PRONOUNCEMENT OF ORDER, THIS DAY, THE COURT MADE
THE FOLLOWING:-
-2-
CRL.RP No. 1290 of 2022
ORDER
1. This Criminal Revision Petition is filed by the
petitioner, being aggrieved by the rejection of the application
filed for release of the amount seized by the respondent-police.
Brief facts of the case are as under:
2. The case of the prosecution is that, the petitioner
presently working as Assistant Executive Engineer,
Bommanahalli Sub-Division, BBMP, Bengaluru. The respondent
police on receiving credible information, fixed the check period
from 01.01.2010 to 31.12.2020. It is alleged that, during this
period, the petitioner herein had disproportionate assets and on
the basis of the enquiry report, a case came to be filed against
the petitioner. After registering of the case, the respondent
conducted the search, in the search, it is stated that, the
amount of Rs.35,00,000/- and Rs.11,00,000/- was seized.
After conducting investigation, the charge sheet was submitted
by the respondent.
3. During the pendency of the case, an application was
filed by the petitioner before the Trial Court to release the
seized amount in his favour by imposing suitable conditions.
The Trial Court rejected the application holding that, the
CRL.RP No. 1290 of 2022
petitioner had disproportionate assets more than 160.77%
against the known sources of income.
4. Heard Shri Chandranath Ariga.K., learned counsel
for the petitioner and Shri B.B.Patil, learned Special P.P. for the
respondent / Lokayukta.
5. It is the submission of learned counsel for the
petitioner that, the amount which was recovered by the
respondent / Police was not required for any other purpose and
it may be released to the custody of the petitioner, by imposing
suitable conditions.
6. It is further submitted that, the respondent / Police
stated to have seized the said amount at the instance of the
petitioner, releasing the said amount in favour of the petitioner
may not affect the respondent in any manner. Having
submitted thus, learned counsel for the petitioner prays to
allow the petition. To substantiate his contentions, he relied on
the judgment of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of
SUNDERBHAI AMBALAL DESAI v. STATE OF GUJARAT1.
(2002) 10 SCC 283
CRL.RP No. 1290 of 2022
7. Per contra, the learned Special PP appearing for the
respondent justified and submitted that the respondent
registered a case on 21.01.2021 for the offence under Section
13(1)(b) of the Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988. As per the
report of the respondent, the petitioner herein is having
disproportionate assets to his known sources of income during
the check period to the extent of 160.77%. The particulars of
the said disproportionate assets including the expenditure and
income as shown in the list, accordingly, the amount was
recovered at the instance of the petitioner. The amount which
was recovered at the instance of the petitioner, stated to be the
part of disproportionate assets, the trial in respect of the said
assets required to be completed. Unless the said amount is
tested by the trial, it cannot be construed as the petitioner is
liable to have the amount in his custody. Having submitted
thus, learned Special PP prays to dismiss the revision petition.
8. Having heard the rival contentions urged by the
learned counsels for the respective parties and also perused the
findings of the Trial Court, no doubt, the amount stated in the
application had been recovered by the respondent / Police and
it is considered as proceeds of the crime. At this stage, neither
CRL.RP No. 1290 of 2022
the petitioner nor any other person has established ownership
of the amount which is seized by the authority.
9. It is needless to say that, to release the property or
any other thing to the interim custody of the person, the
ownership thereof should be established by producing cogent
and relevant document in support thereof. In the present case,
since the matter is set down for trial, it is premature to
construe that the amount which was recovered by the
respondent belongs to the petitioner.
10. If there is a suspicion in respect of the amount
seized as the proceeds of the alleged crime, it may not be
appropriate to return the money to the petitioner. Having
considered the facts and circumstances of the case and also
case under which the amount was seized, I decline to pass any
order for release of the said amount. However, liberty is
reserved to the petitioner to file necessary application before
the Court to seek investment of the said money in any
nationalized bank instead of keeping it idle. If such application
is filed, the Trial Court can entertain the same and invest the
money, as per the guidelines of the dictum of the Hon'ble
CRL.RP No. 1290 of 2022
Supreme Court in the case of SUNDERBHAI AMBALAL DESAI
stated supra.
11. In the light of the observations made above, I
proceed to pass the following:-
ORDER
The Criminal Revision Petition is dismissed.
Sd/-
JUDGE
BSS
