( 1 ) THIS revision is by the State, assailing the order dated 30-11-2002 in karnataka Lokayukta P. S. Crime No. 4/2000 by the learned Principal Sessions and Special Judge, dharwad, ordering for release of the properties mentioned in the seizure panchanama. ( 2 ) THE brief facts of the case are as follows : the accused-Channappa Satgirappa andani while working as Superintending Engineer was found amassed wealth disproportionate to his known source of income, whereas the Lokayukta registered a case in karnataka Lokayukta P. S. Crime No. 4/2000 for the offence under S. 13 (1) (e)r/ws. 13 (2) of the Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988 (hereinafter referred to as "the Act") and a raid was conducted on 18-2-2000 and seized in all 160 articles detailed in the panchanama subjected to P. F. While the investigation is in progress, the accused filed an application under S. 467, Cr. P. C. for release of Item Nos. 1 to 107 mentioned in the properties seized. As could be seen from the panchanama and the investigation papers, the accused was found amassed wealth disproportionate to his known source to the extent of Rs. 99,99,656-81. The learned Principal Sessions and Special Judge allowed the application filed under S. 457, Cr. P. C. by the accused though it is opposed by the State Public Prosecutor for release of the properties and passed the impugned order as follows :"the application filed by the accused-appellant under S. 457 of Cr. P. C. , is allowed in part. The seized properties at SI. Nos. 1 to 18 and 20 to 106 mentioned in the seizure panchanama, are ordered to be given to the interim custody of the accused-applicant on his executing an indemnity bond to the value of those properties with a surety in a like sum and also on his furnishing a bank guarantee to the like sum and with the following conditions : (1) The photographs of all the gold and silver ornaments/articles shall be taken from the needed angles. (2) Certified photocopies of the F. D. Receipts, National Savings Certificates and other securities, if any, shall be produced and kept in the records. (3) Value of the gold and silver articles shall be ascertained through an appraiser. (2) Certified photocopies of the F. D. Receipts, National Savings Certificates and other securities, if any, shall be produced and kept in the records. (3) Value of the gold and silver articles shall be ascertained through an appraiser. (4) The accused-applicant shall bear the costs of taking photographs of the articles, certified photocopies of the securities and the fee to be paid to the appraiser, if any. (5) The accused-applicant shall execute the Indemnity Bond to the maturity value of the F. D. R's, N. S. C's, and other securities, if any, as on the date of his taking them to his interim custody. (6) The accused-applicant shall undertake that he will produce all the gold and silver articles/ornaments before the Court during trial, without changing their shape and identity, as undertaken by himself. "it is insofar as releasing of the properties to the accused in a case arising under disproportionate amassing of wealth, disproportionate to his known source of income is questioned in the present revision. ( 3 ) LEARNED State Public Prosecutor Sri m. S. Chandramouli vehemently contended that releasing of the seized property is unknown to criminal law, wherein the properties itself have been released to the accused though case is registered that too when the matter is pending. The order of the learned principal Sessions and Special Judge is nothing but perverse and has not applied its mind before ordering for release of the properties. Also submitted that the very releasing of the properties to the accused is nothing but handing over the articles to the thief which is liable for confiscation. ( 4 ) LEARNED counsel for the respondent-Sri Mumtaz Ahmed vehemently contended that there is no error on the part of the learned Principal Sessions and Special judge in releasing the properties to the accused. Also submitted that every item of the properties seized has been accounted. Therefore, there is no infirmity as such and prayed to dismiss the revision by confirming the order passed by the learned Principal Sessions and Special Judge. ( 5 ) IN the light of the submissions, the point for consideration that arises; whether the learned Principal Sessions and Special Judge, Dharwad, is justified in ordering release of items 1 to 18 and 20-106 of the properties seized, in favour of the accused? what order? ( 5 ) IN the light of the submissions, the point for consideration that arises; whether the learned Principal Sessions and Special Judge, Dharwad, is justified in ordering release of items 1 to 18 and 20-106 of the properties seized, in favour of the accused? what order? ( 6 ) IT is clear from the F. I. R. that while the accused-Sri Channappa Satgirappa andani was working as Superintending engineer in P. W. D. , alleged to have amassed the wealth disproportionate to his known source of income and that a case was registered in Karnataka Lokayukta P. S. Crime No. 4/2000 for the offence under S. 13 (1) (e) r/ w S. 13 (2) of the Act. It is also seen from the mahazar that the valuable articles like gold, silver, N. S. C's and immovable properties came to be seized under mahazar dated 18-2-2000 and 19-2-2000. It is further seen that the accused prima facie appears to have amassed wealth both movables, immovables including gold, silver, N. S. C's, etc. It is no doubt true that as on the date of passing of the orders, the investigation was not complete. Therefore charge-sheet was yet to be filed resulted in delay. ( 7 ) BUT, on going through the entire prosecution papers, after charge-sheet is filed, it is seen that the accused alleged to have amassed wealth disproportionate to his known source of income to the extent of Rs. 99,99,656-81. When it is the specific case of the Lokayukta that the accused has amassed wealth disproportionate to his known source of income, it is not coming out as to what made out the learned Principal Sessions and special Judge to order release to the very same properties to the accused, is nothing but fence grazing the crop when the accused is liable to be tried for the offences charged. Therefore, the order of release of the properties is unsustainable and nothing but perverse. This Court while considering the similar question, insofar as releasing of the properties in favour of the accused under the Act, amassing wealth disproportionate to his known source of income, held in the case of State of Karnataka v. Krishna Gowda, reported in ILR (2005) kar page 5722 : (2005 AIR - Kant HCR 3027) at para 9 observed thus :"9. It is no doubt true that the learned sessions Judge has inherent powers of releasing the properties during pre-trial stage or after completion of the investigation. The court should bear in mind the nature of offence that is alleged against the accused, the properties that are recovered from the custody of the accused and to examine as to whether it was feasible to release the properties. " ( 8 ) THE learned Principal Sessions and special Judge being a Senior Officer, erroneously passed a cryptic order, which makes the accused to enrich himself and further the learned Principal Sessions and Special judge has lost sight of the fact whether the accused would be in a position to produce the valuables at the time of trial or not. In that view of the matter also the impugned order is not sustainable and, therefore, the learned Principal Sessions and Special judge is hereby ordered to. direct the accused to produce all the released items of the properties seized and restore it to the court custody within a period of 4 weeks from today. If the said items of the properties seized are not produced to the Court, the learned Principal Sessions and Special judge shall take coercive steps for restoration of the said articles in accordance with law. With the said observation, this revision- petition is allowed. It is brought to the notice of the Court that charge-sheet is filed. In that view of the matter, the learned Principal Sessions and special Judge is directed to dispose of the matter by the end of June, 2006. The office is directed to return the trial court records forthwith. The learned counsel for the respondent who is present today before the Court is instructed to keep respondent/accused present before the trial Court on 16-1-2006. Petition allowed. --- *** --- .