Case Note & Summary
The State of Karnataka, through Puttur Town Police Station, filed a criminal revision petition under Section 397 read with 401 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973, challenging the order dated 08.01.2016 passed by the V-Addl. District and Sessions Judge, Dakshina Kannada, sitting at Puttur, in Crl.RP.No.5046/2015. That order had allowed the revision petition filed by the respondent, Vinaya Krishna Khandige, and set aside the trial court's order dated 17.10.2015 in C.C.No.1575/2015, which had rejected the respondent's application under Section 457 CrPC for release of seized property. The respondent had claimed to be the absolute owner of shop premises bearing D.No.20-1-17-8D/A-0-1 of Puttur TMC, situated in Vailankani complex, Darbe, Puttur, which he had purchased. After purchase, he made interior decoration and installed electronic items detailed in the schedule of the lease deed dated 10.01.2014. The police had seized the property, and the respondent sought its interim custody. The trial court rejected the application, but the Sessions Judge, on revision, allowed it and ordered release of the property. The State contended that the Sessions Judge's order was erroneous and that the property was required for investigation. The High Court heard both sides and perused the records. The court noted that the respondent had produced documents including the lease deed to establish ownership. The court found that the Sessions Judge had correctly appreciated the facts and that the property was not required for investigation or trial. The High Court held that the order of the Sessions Judge was just and proper and did not warrant interference. Consequently, the criminal revision petition was dismissed.
Headnote
A) Criminal Procedure - Interim Custody of Property - Section 457 CrPC - Release of Seized Property - The respondent claimed ownership of shop premises and electronic items seized by police. The trial court rejected his application under Section 457 CrPC, but the Sessions Judge allowed revision and ordered release. The High Court upheld the Sessions Judge's order, finding that the property was not required for investigation or trial and that the respondent was the absolute owner. Held that the Sessions Judge's order was just and proper, and no interference was warranted. (Paras 2-5)
Issue of Consideration
Whether the order of the Sessions Judge releasing the seized property to the respondent under Section 457 CrPC was legal and proper.
Final Decision
The High Court dismissed the criminal revision petition, upholding the order of the Sessions Judge dated 08.01.2016 in Crl.RP.No.5046/2015, which allowed the respondent's application under Section 457 CrPC and ordered release of the seized property.
Law Points
- Section 457 CrPC
- interim custody of property
- release of seized property
- ownership
- lease deed
- investigation not requiring property
Case Details
2019 LawText (KAR) (11) 44
Criminal Revision Petition No. 820/2016
Sri. Thejesh .P (HCGP for Petitioner), Sri Rahul Rai .K and Sri Aruna Shyam .M (for Respondent)
State by Puttur Town Police Station
Subscribe to unlock Case Details (Citation, Judge, Date & more)
Subscribe Now
Nature of Litigation
Criminal revision petition challenging the order of Sessions Judge releasing seized property under Section 457 CrPC.
Remedy Sought
State sought to set aside the Sessions Judge's order dated 08.01.2016 and confirm the trial court's order dated 17.10.2015 rejecting the respondent's application for release of property.
Filing Reason
State challenged the Sessions Judge's order allowing the respondent's revision and ordering release of seized property.
Previous Decisions
Trial court (Prl. Senior Civil Judge and A.C.J.M, Puttur) rejected the respondent's application under Section 457 CrPC on 17.10.2015. Sessions Judge (V-Addl. District and Sessions Judge, D.K. Mangaluru sitting at Puttur) allowed revision on 08.01.2016 and set aside trial court's order.
Issues
Whether the Sessions Judge's order releasing the seized property under Section 457 CrPC was legal and proper.
Submissions/Arguments
Learned HCGP for the State argued that the Sessions Judge's order was erroneous and that the property was required for investigation.
Learned counsel for the respondent supported the Sessions Judge's order, contending that the respondent was the absolute owner and the property was not required for investigation or trial.
Ratio Decidendi
The property seized by the police was not required for investigation or trial, and the respondent had established his ownership through documents including a lease deed. Therefore, the Sessions Judge's order releasing the property under Section 457 CrPC was just and proper, and no interference was warranted.
Judgment Excerpts
Heard learned HCGP for the Petitioner – State and learned counsel for the respondent. Perused the entire records.
This petition is filed by the petitioner – State challenging the order dated 8.1.2016 passed by the V-Addl. District and Sessions Judge, D.K. Mangaluru sitting at Puttur, D.K. in Cr.R.P.No.5046/2015 allowing the revision petition and setting aside the order passed by the trial Court in C.C.No.1575/2015 dated 17.10.2015.
Respondent herein had filed an application under Section 457 of Cr.P.C. before the Prl.Senior Civil Judge and ACJM, Puttur in C.C.No.1575/2015 stating that the petitioner is the absolute owner of shop premises bearing D.No.20-1-17-8D/A-0-1 of Puttur TMC situated in Vailankani complex, Darbe, Puttur, purchased by him and after purchase he made interior decoration and installed electronic items detailed in the schedule of the lease deed dated 10.1.2014.
Procedural History
The respondent filed an application under Section 457 CrPC before the Prl. Senior Civil Judge and ACJM, Puttur in C.C.No.1575/2015, which was rejected on 17.10.2015. The respondent then filed a revision petition (Crl.RP.No.5046/2015) before the V-Addl. District and Sessions Judge, D.K. Mangaluru sitting at Puttur, which was allowed on 08.01.2016, setting aside the trial court's order and releasing the property. The State challenged this order by filing the present criminal revision petition (Crl.RP.No.820/2016) before the High Court of Karnataka.
Acts & Sections
- Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973: Section 397, Section 401, Section 457
