Research › Search › Judgment

Karnataka High Court · body

2022 DIGILAW 1011 (KAR)

C. v. Sumana VS State of Karnataka

2022-08-02

K.NATARAJAN

body2022
JUDGMENT 1. This petition is filed by accused Nos.3 and 4 under Sec. 438 of Cr.P.C., for granting anticipatory bail in Crime No.247/2022 registered by the respondent Police Station for the offences punishable under Ss. 465, 468, 471, 420, 120B read with Sec. 34 of IPC. 2. Heard the arguments of Sri Praveen Kumar, learned counsel for the petitioners and Sri Krishna Kumar, learned HCGP for the respondent - State and perused the records. 3. Brief facts of the case of the prosecution is that Sri Ritesh Kumar, Assistant Director of Enforcement Directorate (for short 'ED') filed a complaint to the Wilsongarden Police on 10/6/2022 at 5.30 p.m., later the same was transferred to respondent - K.R. Puram Police Station and registered as Crime No.247/2022, wherein it is alleged that the ED attached a residential property bearing Site No.3, Khatha No.28/45/1, New Katha No.742 situated a Varanazi @ Jinkethimmanahalli Village, Bidarahalli Hobli, held in the name of accused No.1 - John Michael, vide Provisional Attachment Order (POA) bearing No.09/2014 dtd. 6/8/2014 under Sec. 5 of Provisions of Money Laundering Act, 2002 (for short 'PMLA') and the same was intimated to the K.R.Puram Sub-Registrar Office and made encumbrance of the property attached by the ED; subsequently a further attachment was intimated by the ED on 26/11/2014. Subsequently, accused Nos.1 and 2 said to have sold the said property to accused Nos.5 and 6 and the petitioners herein being the Additional Sub- Registrar and Senior Sub-Registrar of K.R. Puram Sub- Register Office, without verification of documents of the property and ignoring the attachment made by the ED, has allowed the accused No.1 to sell the property. Thereby the ED requested the Police to investigate the matter. The petitioners being the Sub-Registrars apprehending their arrest in the hands of K.R. Puram Police, approached the Sessions Court for granting bail but the same was rejected. Hence, the petitioners are before this Court. 4. Learned counsel for the petitioners contended that petitioner No.1 was the Additional Sub-Registrar of K.R. Puram Sub-Register Office at the time of registration of the document and without knowledge of the attachment of the property by the ED, she executed the same in favour of accused Nos.5 and 6 in the Sale Deed made by accused Nos.1 and 2, since the attachment was not mentioned in the book of Court proceedings. Petitioner No.2 - accused No.4 was not at all present there at the time of registration on 10/7/2020, as he was transferred to Gandhi Nagar Sub-Registrar Office and he was relieved from the service of K.R. Puram Sub-Register Office on 30/6/2020. He submits that the petitioners cannot refuse the registration of the document and execution of Sale Deed for any other reasons, which are not listed under the Rule 171 of Karnataka Registration Rules 1965. Since the petitioners are Sub-Registrars, there is no question of absconding, hence, he prayed for grant of bail. 5. Per contra, learned High Court Government Pleader for the respondent - State objected the bail petition and contended that the petitioners purposefully allowed the accused Nos.1 and 2 to sell the property, even though the ED attached the said property and it was intimated to the Sub-Register Office and it was mentioned in the Court Book and also made entry in the computer. Therefore, it cannot be said that they did not have knowledge of attachment. He submits that the presence of petitioners is required for custodial interrogation, hence, prayed for dismissal of the bail petition. 6. Upon considering the arguments and on perusal of the records, admittedly, petitioner No.2 was not a Sub- Register of K.R. Puram Sub-Register Office on 10/7/2020 when the said document was executed by accused Nos.1 and 2 by selling the property attached by the ED in favour of accused Nos.5 and 6, as he was transferred to Sub- Register Officer Gandhi Nagar. Further, petitioner No.1 - Smt. C.V. Sumana is Additional Sub-Register who registered the document. The Senior Sub-Register has given a statement to the Assistant Director of Register stating and justifying that he cannot refuse to register in view of the judgment passed by the High Court as well as Rule 171 of the Karnataka Registration Rules. It is contended that since the entry was not made in the computer by the Computer Operator, therefore, without the knowledge of attachment petitioner No.1 executed the Sale Deed and they are pleading bonafide. The document produced by the Sub-Registrar Office also reveals that the enquiry was made in the Sub-Register Office to find out where the mistake occurred regarding not making entry of ED attachment and why it was not brought to the notice of the Sub-Registrar before registering the document. The document produced by the Sub-Registrar Office also reveals that the enquiry was made in the Sub-Register Office to find out where the mistake occurred regarding not making entry of ED attachment and why it was not brought to the notice of the Sub-Registrar before registering the document. Considering all these facts, of course, the petitioners are Sub-Registers who are only the executing authorities and the entire process of registration would be taken by the officials of the Sub-Register Office including the case workers and the Data Entry Operators, who have to bring to the notice of the Sub-Registrar about the attachment made either by the Court or any other authorities. Therefore, at this stage, it cannot be presumed that the petitioners have intentionally executed the document by ignoring the ED attachment, which was already intimated by the ED long back in the year 2014. Therefore, it is the matter required to be investigated by the Police in detail by enquiring with the officials of the Sub-Register to find out the truth. At this stage it cannot be said that the petitioners have intentionally executed the Sale Deed. Without detail investigation, it cannot be said that it is the mistake committed by the petitioners. The entire case is based on the documentary evidence. Therefore, by imposing stringent conditions if the petitioners are enlarged on bail no prejudice would be caused to the case of the prosecution. Hence, I pass the following order: Order The Criminal Petition is allowed. The respondent - Police are directed to release the petitioners-accused Nos. 3 and 4 on bail in the event of their arrest Crime No.247/2022 registered by the respondent Police Station for the offences punishable under Ss. 465, 468, 471, 420 and 120B read with Sec. 34 of IPC, subject to the following conditions; (i) Petitioners shall execute personal bonds for a sum of Rs.5,00,000.00 (Rupees Five Lakhs Only) each with two sureties for the likesum to the satisfaction of the Investigating Officer; (ii) Petitioners shall surrender themselves within 15 days from the date of receipt of certified copy of this order; (iii) Petitioners shall not directly or indirectly tamper with any of the prosecution witnesses; (iv) Petitioners shall be deemed to be in custody for the purpose of recovery under Sec. 27 of the Indian Evidence Act. (v) Petitioners shall appear before the Investigating Officer as and when called for investigation. (v) Petitioners shall appear before the Investigating Officer as and when called for investigation. (vi) If any of the conditions is violated, the prosecution is at liberty to move for cancellation of bail.