Case Note & Summary
The judgment concerns two connected petitions arising from Crime No.3/2016 registered by the Lokayukta Police, Tumakuru, against R. Umeshappa, an Executive Engineer, and his daughter Hemavathi U. The first petition (Crl.R.P.1227/2016) was filed under Sections 397 and 401 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973, seeking to set aside the order dated 14.09.2016 passed by the II Additional District and Sessions Judge, Tumkuru, which refused to release seized articles and cash to the petitioners. The second petition (Crl.P.6883/2016) was filed under Section 482 Cr.P.C. by R. Umeshappa alone, seeking to quash the proceedings in Crime No.3/2016 for the offence punishable under Section 13(1)(e) read with Section 13(2) of the Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988. The court heard both petitions together as they were inter-related. The court noted that the Lokayukta Police had filed an FIR in Crime No.1/2016 for offences under Sections 7, 13(1)(d) read with Section 13(2) of the PC Act against the first petitioner and another. The court observed that the investigation was ongoing and no charge sheet had been filed. Regarding the revision petition, the court held that the trial court's order refusing interim custody was not justified and directed the release of the seized cash and articles to the petitioners on certain conditions, including furnishing of a bond and undertaking to produce the items as and when required. The quash petition was dismissed as premature, as the investigation was still in progress and the petitioner could raise all grounds at the appropriate stage. The court disposed of both petitions accordingly.
Headnote
A) Criminal Procedure - Interim Custody of Seized Property - Sections 397, 401 Cr.P.C. - The petitioners sought release of seized cash and articles pending trial in a corruption case - The court allowed the revision petition, directing release of seized items to the petitioners on certain conditions, holding that the trial court's refusal was not justified (Paras 1-10). B) Criminal Procedure - Quashing of FIR - Section 482 Cr.P.C. - The petitioner sought quashing of FIR for offences under Section 13(1)(e) read with Section 13(2) of the Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988 - The court dismissed the petition as premature, holding that the investigation was ongoing and no charge sheet had been filed (Paras 1-10).
Issue of Consideration
Whether the petitioners are entitled to interim custody of seized articles and cash pending trial, and whether the FIR and proceedings against the petitioner should be quashed under Section 482 Cr.P.C.
Final Decision
The court allowed Crl.R.P.1227/2016, setting aside the order dated 14.09.2016 and directing the release of seized articles and cash to the petitioners on conditions including furnishing a bond and undertaking to produce the items as required. The court dismissed Crl.P.6883/2016 as premature, holding that the investigation was ongoing and no charge sheet had been filed, and the petitioner could raise all grounds at the appropriate stage.
Law Points
- Interim custody of seized property
- Quashing of FIR
- Premature quash petition
- Prevention of Corruption Act
- 1988
