Sushila Devi Taparia vs State of Karnataka

S.N. Satyanarayana, J.—1. This criminal petition is filed challenging the concurrent finding of both the Courts below in rejecting the prayer of petitioner herein for release of Rs. 54 lakhs cash seized in Crime No. 21/2014 of Hosapete Town Police Station.

The brief facts leading to this petition are that the Hosapete Town Police registered a complaint in Crime No. 21/2014 which is with reference to seizure of Rs. 54 lakhs cash, which was carried in SRE bus bearing registration No. KA-16/B-6678, which was proceeding from Hyderabad to Shivamogga. The reason for police apprehending the aforesaid bus is, on the basis of complaint which was filed by one H. Channesh alleging that a sum of Rs. 50 lakh which was carried by him in the said bus is stolen by somebody who is travelling in the same bus. Hence the said bus was apprehended within the limits of Hosapete Town Police and the bus was taken to police station around 4.10 a.m. On thorough search of the bus in the presence of panchas, the complainant H. Channesh along with one another Manjunath who is subsequently taken as complaint witness.

When the bus was searched, a sum of Rs. 54 lakh was found in two bags in currency notes of the face value of Rs. 1,000/- and Rs. 500/-. However when the said money was shown to H. Channesh, he stated that the said money does not belong to him and that is not the money which was stolen from him. So far as the custody of the said money with the persons who were travelling in seat numbers 36 and 37 namely Ranjanakumar and Rajkumar Chandravamshi was not properly explained by them. They were not in a position to explain the source of said money. The police being suspicious of the source of money, seized the same under PF No. 15/2014 in Crime No. 21/2014 and took custody of the same. From this the trouble has started with too many people claiming to get the said money released.

The records would disclose that earlier one Moolchand, Sohanjalsharama and Rajendra B. Joshi, Assistant Director of Income Tax sought for release of the said amount by filing an application under Section 457 of Cr.P.C, which was rejected. What is the fate of the said order, whether it was subject matter of revision or appeal is not seen. Subsequently the present petitioner herein filed an application on 17.6.2015 seeking release of the said amount under Section 451 and 457 of Cr.P.C, on the ground that the money which was carried by the said persons in the bus is for the purpose of acquiring a sick unit in Karnataka and the source of money is sale of certain properties belonging to the petitioner. To substantiate the same, a list of properties which were sold by her was given to the learned Magistrate.

However the learned Magistrate after making thorough investigation into the matter has found that the grounds urged for release of money is not believable in as much as the petitioner being a lady aged 69 years is not known to be having any avocation, much less she is in a position to acquire a sick company and run the same. Besides that in the petition itself she has admitted that she is an agriculturist. Therefore the entire transaction rightly appeared to be fishy to the learned Magistrate. Hence he did not entertain the said application and rejected the same. The order of the learned Magistrate was subject matter of revision before the learned III Addl. District and Sessions Judge, Ballari, sitting at Hosapete, in Crl.R.P. No. 5043/2015. The learned District Judge after taking careful consideration of the revision filed by the petitioner herein by order dated 28.9.2015 rejected the said revision and confirmed the order of rejection of the application dated 17.6.2015.

Being aggrieved by the concurrent finding of both the Courts below, the petitioner has come up in this petition seeking quashing of both the orders. Heard the learned counsel for the petitioner. Perused the documents available on record. In addition to that this day learned counsel for the petitioner furnished a set of documents which consists of 13 copies of sale deeds of which 7 are with reference to sale made between 30.8.2012 to 29.10.2012 and another set of sale deeds are with reference to transactions from 10.1.2013 to 25.3.2013. He tried to substantiate that under aforesaid sale deeds the claimant has received an amount totaling to Rs. 74 lakh. Out of that Rs. 54 lakhs was being carried to Karnataka for the purpose of acquiring a sick unit and this amount which was seized by the police could not be kept with them and the same shall be released in favour of the legitimate owner/petitioner.

However one of the copy of sale deed is looked into. The said sale deed clearly indicates that the sale consideration is paid by cheque bearing No. 010576 drawn on Bank of India, Vairana, Goa branch, in favour of the vendor. Therefore the said document and other similar documents clearly indicate that the sale consideration which is received by the vendor under these sale deeds is through cheque drawn on different banks, issued in her name. If that is accepted, there is nothing on record to show when she has drawn the cash, from which bank is not properly explained. Further instead of transferring the funds through bank why it is transferred by way of cash is also not properly explained.

On the contrary, an attempt is made to project as if the petitioner herein has received cash under these sale deeds. Another trick which is attempted to play on this Court is in placing reliance on these 13 sale deeds which are in Hindi and no attempt is made by the learned counsel for the petitioner to file translated copies of the same.

With this it is clearly seen that there is an attempt to hoodwink not only the learned Magistrate, but also the District Court and also this Court. In any event an attempt of the person who is trying to get the amount seized under P.F. No. 15/2014 in Crime No. 21/2014 with Hosapete Town Police Station is nothing but a indigenous act to ensure that unaccounted amount seized by the police in aforesaid crime number is released in her favour. In the entire proceedings the petitioner herein appears to be a tool in the hands of unknown persons who are trying to move the Magistrate Court, Sessions Court and this Court to get the aforesaid sum released.

In that view of the matter, this Court is of the firm view that the aforesaid money shall not be disbursed and the same shall be continued in the possession of the learned Magistrate until the entire proceedings in C.C. No. 985/2014, on the file of Prl. Civil Judge and JMFC, Hosapete, is decided and in addition to that the true ownership of the amount, unless it is decided, the same shall not be released in favour of anybody. With such observation this criminal petition is dismissed.