Research › Search › Judgment

Karnataka High Court · body

2023 DIGILAW 593 (KAR)

State of Karnataka v. Suman Kiran Subbaraya

2023-04-13

RAJESH RAI K.

body2023
JUDGMENT RAJESH RAI K., J. This appeal is filed under Sec. 454(1) of Cr.P.C. by the appellant-ACB Police against the order dtd. 29/1/2022, passed in Crl.Misc.No.1433/2021 by the IV Addl. Sessions Judge, Belagavi (for short 'Trial Court'), wherein, the learned Sessions Judge allowed the application filed by the respondents/petitioners filed under Sec. 452 of Cr.P.C., to de-frieze all the bank accounts/lockers and to release all the articles/items seized under PF No.6/2018 subsequent to the raid conducted on 19/3/2018 in Crime No.6/2018 by the appellant herein. 2. The brief fact of the case is that, the respondents/petitioners being the legal heirs of one Late Kiran s/o of Subbaraya, accused in ACB Crime No.6/2018 have filed application under Sec. 452 of Cr.P.C. to release the articles, to de-frieze the bank accounts, the documents seized by the ACB Police in Crime No.6/2018 at the time of raid conducted on 20/3/2018 and seized the movables and valuables like gold, silver and cash in the house in the presence of panch witnesses and thereafter submitted the property list to the trial Court in Crime No.6/2018. Prior to filing of the final report by the said ACB Police, the accused died on 16/4/2021. Accordingly, entire proceedings got terminated in view of the death of the accused. The respondents / petitioners being the legal heirs of deceased / accused are filed the application before the trial Court as stated supra and the learned trial Judge allowed the same. Being aggrieved by the said order, the ACB Police filed this appeal to set aside the order passed by the trial Court in Crl. Misc. No.1433/2021. 3. Heard the learned counsel Sri.Santosh B.Malagouder for the appellant and the learned counsel Sri.Avinash Angadi, learned counsel for respondents. 4. The learned counsel for appellant vehemently argued that the learned trial Judge has erred by allowing the application filed by the respondents under Sec. 452 of Cr.P.C. since the accused has not submitted his schedule before the investigation officer during the course of investigation even after giving him so many opportunities, thus, when the accused has failed to furnish schedule statement during his life time, the respondents are not entitled to claim right over such properties. He would further contend that the huge amount, articles and properties seized during the investigation by the appellant are nothing but the ill-gotten wealth of the accused and such properties cannot be returned back to the family when there is no proper explanation given by them as to how they are really entitled for such disputed properties. As such, he prays to set aside the order passed by the trial judge in Crl.Misc.No.1433/2021. 5. Per contra, learned counsel for the respondents contend that there is no dispute to the fact that the proceedings against the accused in crime No.6/2018 stood abated in view of his death on 16/4/2021. Hence, the abatement of the accused results in total termination of proceedings. Hence, there is no question of confiscation of the property of the deceased/accused and respondents being the legal heirs of the accused they are entitled for the same. Accordingly, the learned trial Judge has rightly allowed the application filed by the respondents/petitioners and ordered to release the properties. He would further contend that the law in respect of the said aspect is settled by this Court in Crl.R.P. No.982/2015 dtd. 23/8/2019. Hence, he prays to dismiss the appeal. 6. I have bestowed my anxious consideration on the arguments advanced by the respective counsel and also perused the documents available on record. 7. As rightly contended by the learned counsel for the respondents, there is no dispute to the fact that proceedings against the accused stood abated in view of his death on 16/4/2021. As per the settled proposition of law, death of the accused would result total termination of the proceedings. 8. Sec. 452 of The Code Of Criminal Procedure, 1973 reads as under: 452. Order for disposal of property at conclusion of trial. (1) When an inquiry or trial in any Criminal Court is concluded, the Court may make such order as it thinks fit for the disposal, by destruction, confiscation or delivery to any person claiming to be entitle to possession thereof or otherwise, of any property or document produced before it or in its custody, or regarding which any offence appears to have been committed, or which has been used for the commission of any offence. (2) An order may be made under sub- Sec. (1) for the delivery of any property to any person claiming to be entitled to the possession thereof, without any condition or on condition that he executes a bond, with or without sureties, to the satisfaction of the Court, engaging to restore such property to the Court if the order made under sub- Sec. (1) is modified or set aside on appeal or revision. (3) A Court of Session may, instead of itself making an order under sub- Sec. (1), direct the property to be delivered to the Chief Judicial Magistrate, who shall thereupon deal with it in the manner provided in Sec. s 457, 458 and 459 . (4) Except where the property is livestock or is subject to speedy and natural decay, or where a bond has been executed in pursuance of subsec. (2), an order made under sub- Sec. (1) shall not be carried out for two months, or when an appeal is presented, until such appeal has been disposed of. (5) In this Sec., the term" property" includes, in the case of property regarding which an offence appears to have been committed, not only such property as has been originally in the possession or under the control of any party, but also any property into or for which the same may have been converted or exchanged, and anything acquired by such conversion or exchange, whether immediately or otherwise. 9. The co-ordinate bench of this Court while passing the order in Crl.R.P. No.982/2015 held that " As could be seen from the letter and spirit of Sec. 452 of Cr.P.C. the word "inquiry" means after inquiry or the trial in a criminal case, such inquiry procedure can be adopted for limited purpose as stated above for disposal of the property only to ascertain as to whether they are the legal representatives to such property or not". Nevertheless, such inquiry can be included whether there is a rival claim by anybody in respect of the seized properties. Admittedly, in the case on hand, no such rival claim is made by anybody in respect of the seized properties. The relationship of the respondents with the deceased also not in dispute and they are the legal heirs of the deceased accused. 10. Admittedly, in the case on hand, no such rival claim is made by anybody in respect of the seized properties. The relationship of the respondents with the deceased also not in dispute and they are the legal heirs of the deceased accused. 10. In such circumstance, the Court as to adopt the procedure in a case of acquittal for disposal of properties to such persons who claims it and they are entitled for the same. 11. The trial Court has rightly passed the order by relying on the judgment of Co-ordinate Bench of this Court in the case of Smt.Nirmala K.S. Vs. State of Karnataka in Crl.A.No.2177/2018, wherein, the procedure in respect of Sec. 452 and 454 in Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988, Sec. 13(1)(c) r/w Sec. 13(2), release of seized items in case of abatement of proceedings due to the death of the accused, the Court held that it cannot be kept pending collateral inquiry, gold and silver items which were seized from the house of accused, when the legal heirs of the deceased-accused filed application and when there are no rival claimants. Hence, the law is very much settled on this issue. Admittedly, it is not the case of appellant-ACB that respondents are not the legal heirs of deceased accused. Hence, by considering all the aspects, the trial Judge rightly passed the order by allowing the application filed under Sec. 452 of Cr.P.C. filed by the respondents. 12. In that view of the matter, in my considered opinion, the appeal filed by the appellant-ACB is devoid of merits and same is liable to be dismissed. Accordingly, I pass the following: ORDER Appeal is dismissed. The order passed by the IV Addl. Sessions Judge, Belagavi in Crl.Misc. No.1433/2021 dtd. 29/01/2022 is hereby confirmed.