SRI. D. SRINIVAS @ SRINIVASALU vs STATE BY MULBAGAL

The petitioner has approached this court seeking setting aside the order passed by the Additional Civil Judge and JMFC Mulbagal in Crime No.

318/2016 and also the order dated 13.02.2017 by the Principal District and Sessions Judge, Kolar in Crl.P.No.66/2016. Wherein, both the

courts have held that the petitioner is not entitled for the interim custody of the amount seized under the said case to the extent of Rs. Eight Lakhs

and thereby both the courts have rejected the application filed under Section 457 of Cr.P.C. Admittedly, it is the cash amount which was seized

from the custody of the complainant who is the petitioner herein.

The brief factual matrix of the case is that the complainant and accused persons have engaged in a transaction of gold biscuits between each

other. It is alleged that the accused persons have assured the complainant to give 25 gold biscuits for a sum of Rs.Ten Lakhs. In this context, on

26.11.2016 the complainant was waiting for the accused at a place called Mulbagal - K.G.F Road. At that time, the accused came. They gave

some gold biscuits to the complainant and after looking to those gold biscuits, the complainant has shown Rs.Ten Lakhs to them and gave Rs.Two

Lakhs and after receiving the said Rs.Two lakhs, the said accused ran away from the spot. By that time, police also arrived at the spot and they

have seized the alleged golden biscuit boxes and also Rs.Eight Lakhs which was with the complainant and subjected the said articles to PF before

the trial court.

The complainant has filed an application for the release of the said amount. The learned Magistrate has refused to release the same. Because the

said amount was taken in exchange of demonetized old currency notes of Rs.500/- and Rs.1,000/-. It is also stated that there is chances of utilizing

the said amount by the applicant. Admittedly, the seized amounts were currency notes of Rs.2,000/- denomination and not demonetized currency.

Therefore, there cannot be any apprehension that demonetized currency notes being utilized by the accused persons. Therefore, the trial court has

committed a serious error in holding that the said amount may be utilized by the accused. Being aggrieved by the said order of rejection of

application under Section 457 of Cr.P.C., the petitioner had approached the learned Sessions judge by way of revision petition in Crl.RP.

No.66/2016. Reiterating the same, the learned Sessions judge also dismissed the said revision petition.

On careful perusal of the entire materials on record, it is Rs.2,000/- denomination currency notes which are seized in connection with this case

and all the note numbers have been noted by the police in mahazar and they have also given no objection to the court for release of the said

amount to the complainant with certain conditions.

At this juncture, it is worth to mention here a decision of the Hon''ble Apex Court reported in AIR 2003 SC 638 between ""Sundarlalbai

Ambalal Desai Vs. The State of Gujarath"" wherein, the Hon''ble Apex court has observed that:

The powers under Sections 451 and 457 of Cr.P.C. should be exercised expeditiously and judiciously and to pass orders immediately and seized

articles normally should not be kept for a long time however in the police station or in the court. The court has to exercise its powers normally and

to pass orders in favour of

Owner of the article so that would not suffer because of its remaining unused or by its misappropriation.

Court or the police would not be required to keep the article in safe custody;

If the proper panchanama before handing over possession of article is prepared, that can be used in evidence instead of its production before

the Court during the trial. If necessary, evidence could also be recorded describing the nature of the properly in detail; and

This jurisdiction of the Court to record evidence should be exercised promptly so that there may not be further chance of tampering with the

articles.

For disposal of the seized articles such as currency notes, vehicles, liquor and narcotic drugs, the magistrate is directed to pass appropriate orders

immediately and articles should not be kept for a long time in the custody of police station or in the court for not more than fifteen days to one

month by imposing certain conditions.

In view of the above said decision of the Hon''ble Apex Court, it is crystal clear that with certain conditions the court can release such articles to

the person who is entitled for the interim custody under the above said circumstances, I proceed to pass the following:-

ORDER

The petition is allowed.

Consequently, the orders passed by the Principal District and Sessions Judge, in Crl.RP. No.66/2016 dated 13.02.2017 and the order passed by

the Additional Civil Judge and JMFC, Mulbagal in Cr.No.318/2016 are hereby set aside. The application filed by the petitioner before the trial

court under Section 457 of the Cr.P.C. is hereby allowed.

Consequently, The trial court is hereby directed to issue release order for releasing all the cash of Rs.Eight Lakhs (Rs.2,000 x 400 notes) seized in

connection with Crime No.318/2016 subjected to PF No.174/2016, dated 26.11.2016 pertaining to the respondent-police to the interim custody

of the petitioner on following conditions:

The petitioner shall execute an Indemnity Bond for a sum of Rs.Eight Lakhs with one surety for the likesum to the satisfaction of the trial court.

After execution of the Bond and furnishing surety, the trial court is directed to issue release order.

In view of the disposal of the main petition, IA 1/2017 does not survive fro consideration.