Rahim @ Goods Rahim vs The State Of Karnataka
2023 Latest Caselaw 73 Kant

                                            -1-
                                                     CRL.A No. 2194 of 2017




                   IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU

                        DATED THIS THE 2ND DAY OF JANUARY, 2023

                                         BEFORE
                 THE HON'BLE MR JUSTICE SHIVASHANKAR AMARANNAVAR
                           CRIMINAL APPEAL NO. 2194 OF 2017
                 BETWEEN:

                 RAHIM @ GOODS RAHIM
                 @ KANDI RAHIM
                 S/O ABDUL AZEEZ,
                 AGED ABOUT 42 YEARS
                 R/O DOOR NO.10/14/644
                 ANSARI ROAD CROSS,
                 BUNDER, MANGALURU-575 001.
                                                            ...APPELLANT

                 (BY SRI. R B DESHPANDE, ADVOCATE)

                 AND:

                 THE STATE OF KARNATAKA
                 BY MANGALURU NORTH POLICE STATION,
                 MANGALURU CITY-575 001.

                    (REPRESENTED BY STATE PUBLIC PROSECUTOR,
Digitally signed by HIGH COURT BUILDINGS, BENGALURU-560 001)
SANDHYA S                                                 ...RESPONDENT
Location: High
Court of Karnataka (BY SMT. RASHMI JADHAV, HCGP)

                      THIS CRL.A IS FILED U/S.454 OF CR.P.C PRAYING TO
                 SET ASIDE THE ORDER DATED:04.10.2017 PASSED BY THE
                 PRINCIPAL   SESSIONS    JUDGE/SPECIAL   JUDGE,    D.K.,
                 MANGALORE IN SPL.C.NO.124/2015 IN SO FAR AS IT RELATES
                 TO CONFISCATION OF MOs 06 TO 11 TO THE STATE
                             -2-
                                     CRL.A No. 2194 of 2017




GOVERNMENT AND RELEASE THE MOs NO.6 TO 11 IN FAVOR
OF APPELLANT WHICH ARE PROPERTIES MARKED IN
SPL.C.NO.124/2015 ON THE FILE OF THE PRINCIPAL
SESSIONS JUDGE/SPECIAL JUDGE, D.K., MANGALORE.

     THIS APPEAL, COMING ON FOR ADMISSION, THIS DAY,
THE COURT DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING:


                       JUDGMENT

Even though this appeal is listed for admission, by

consent of both the learned counsel it is taken up for final

disposal.

2. Heard the learned counsel for the appellant and

Smt. Rashmi Jadhav, learned HCGP for the respondent -

State.

3. The appellant is accused No. 1 in Spl. Case No.

124/2015. Appellant - accused No.1 and another accused

i.e., accused No. 2 have been acquitted by the Principal

Sessions Judge/Special Judge, D.K., Mangaluru, of the

charges under Section 8(c) read with Section 20(b)(ii)(B)

CRL.A No. 2194 of 2017

of Narcotic Drugs and Psychotropic Substances Act, 1985,

vide judgment dated 04.10.2017.

4. Case of the prosecution before the trial Court was

that appellant was possessing ganja when he was caught

and he was also possessing M.Os. 6 and 7 - mobile

phones and M.Os. 8 to 11 - golden ornaments. The said

M.Os. 1 to 11 have been seized under Ex.P.1 - mahazar.

While acquitting the appellant and co-accused, the

Principal Sessions Judge/Special Judge, D.K., Mangaluru

ordered for confiscation of M.Os. 6 to 11 as accused did

not claim the same. The said order of confiscation of M.Os.

6 to 11 has been challenged in this appeal.

5. Learned counsel for the appellant would contend

that M.Os.6 to 11 belong to appellant - accused No. 1,

they have been seized from his possession, there is no

rival claim and therefore he is entitled for release of M.Os.

6 to 11 in his favour.

CRL.A No. 2194 of 2017

6. Per contra learned HCGP appearing for the

respondent - State would contend that M.Os. 6 to 11 are

stated to have been acquired by accused No.1 from sale of

ganja are liable for confiscation and the Principal Sessions

Judge/Special Judge, D.K., Mangaluru has rightly ordered

for confiscation of M.Os.6 to 11.

7. Appellant - accused No. 1 and accused No. 2 have

been acquitted of the charges leveled against them for the

offence punishable under Section 8(c) read with Section

20(b)(ii)(B) of Narcotic Drugs and Psychotropic

Substances Act, 1985. The prosecution has failed to prove

that accused No. 1 who is the appellant herein was

possessing M.O.1 to M.O.5 - ganja and they were seized

from his possession. M.Os.6 to 11 being two mobile

phones, two gold chains and two gold finger rings were

seized from the possession of appellant - accused No.1. As

M.Os.6 to 11 were seized from the possession of appellant

- accused No. 1, as he has been acquitted of the charges

CRL.A No. 2194 of 2017

leveled against him, he is entitled for release of M.Os.6 to

11 in his favour. The Principal Sessions Judge/Special

Judge, D.K., Mangaluru ordered for confiscation of M.Os.6

to 11 since appellant - accused No. 1 did not lay a claim

seeking release of M.Os.6 to 11. The Honda Activa Motor

Cycle which is also seized from appellant - accused No.1

under Ex.P.1 - mahazar was released to him for his

interim custody and the same has been made absolute in

the judgment dated 04.10.2017. There is no rival claim by

any other person seeking release of M.Os.6 to 11. As

M.Os.6 to 11 are seized from the possession of appellant -

accused No. 1, he is entitled for release of those articles to

his custody.

8. In the result, appeal is allowed. The order of

confiscation of M.Os.6 to 11 vide order dated 04.10.2017

passed in Spl.Case No. 124/2015 by the Principal Sessions

Judge/Special Judge, D.K., Mangaluru, is set aside. The

trial Court is directed to release M.Os.6 to 11 to the

CRL.A No. 2194 of 2017

appellant - accused No. 1 subject to the following

condition:

The appellant - accused No. 1 shall execute

an indemnity bond for a sum of Rs.3,00,000/-

(Rupees Three lakhs only).

In view of disposal of the appeal, I.A. No. 2/2018

seeking stay does not survive for consideration.

Accordingly, it is dismissed.

Sd/-

JUDGE

LRS