S SATHYANARAYANA Vs. STATE OF KARNATAKA
LAWS(KAR)-2003-1-42
HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA
Decided on January 24,2003

S.SATHYANARAYANA Appellant
VERSUS
STATE OF KARNATAKA Respondents





Cited Judgements :-

P. MANIKANDAN VS. STATE REPRESENTED BY THE SUB-INSPECTOR OF POLICE [LAWS(MAD)-2012-12-79] [REFERRED TO]
TEESTA ATUL SETLVAD VS. STATE OF GUJARAT & 3 ORS [LAWS(GJH)-2015-10-207] [REFERRED]
MAA KUANRI TRANSPORT VS. STATE OF ORISSA [LAWS(ORI)-2021-6-49] [REFERRED TO]
JIGNESH PRAKASH SHAH VS. CENTRAL BUREAU OF INVESTIGATION, BANKING SECURITIE [LAWS(BOM)-2018-6-6] [REFERRED TO]
A.RAJAN VS. THE ASSISTANT GENERAL MANAGER (LAW) [LAWS(MAD)-2016-8-44] [REFERRED TO]
NATWAR LAL VS. STATE [LAWS(RAJ)-2008-4-55] [REFERRED TO]


JUDGEMENT

- (1.)ADMIT. THIS revision under Section 397 r/w 401, Cr. P. C. is directed against the order of IV Additional Chief Metropolitan Magistrate, Bangalore who has rejected the request of the petitioner for return of the passport seized by the Investigating Officer in Crime No. 565 of 2001 of Ulsor Gate Police Station.
(2.)THIS revision arises under the following background : the petitioner who was an Officer in the Reserve Bank of India, Bangalore, till May 2001 took voluntary retirement from the service. After long lapse of time of his retirement, his former employer-Reserve Bank of India filed a criminal complaint in Ulsoorgate Police Station alleging commission of offences punishable under Sections 409, 468 and 477-A, IPC. During the course of investigation, the I. O. seized the passports of the petitioner and his wife and certain documents pertaining to the immovable property owned by his wife and a motor car along with the documents pertaining to it. The petitioner and his wife thereafter made an application before the learned Magistrate invoking his jurisdiction under Section 457/451, Cr. P. C. seeking return of passports, motor car and the documents pertaining to it as well as the documents pertaining to the property owned and possessed by his wife etc. , certain contentions were raised before the learned Magistrate for passing an order of interim custody of the property seized by the I. O.
(3.)THIS was opposed by the State on the ground that the petitioner and his wife are likely to leave the country to escape the prosecution. The learned Magistrate upon consideration of the rival contentions, allowed the request of the petitioners in part and ordered release of R. C. book, Insurance, Tax card, passport of the 2nd petitioner and other documents such as possession certificate, sanction plan, licence, estimate and tax paid receipts seized under P. F. No. 120 of 2001 to the interim custody of the accused on executing an indemnity bond subject to certain conditions. Insofar as the passport of the petitioner is concerned, the Magistrate rejected his prayer.


Click here to view full judgement.
Copyright © Regent Computronics Pvt.Ltd.