IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU DATED THIS THE 6TH DAY OF OCTOBER, 2017 BEFORE THE HON’BLE MR.JUSTICE ARAVIND KUMAR CRIMINAL PETITION NO.7014/2016 BETWEEN:
BORALINGAIAH S/O. PUTTASWAMY, AGED ABOUT 36 YEARS, R/O. NO.3, N.S.BUILDING, OPP. GOVERNMENT SCHOOL, HOODI, BENGALURU – 560 048 ...PETITIONER (BY SRI.S.G.RAJENDRA REDDY, ADVOCATE) AND:
1. STATE OF KARNATAKA BY MAHADEVAPURA POLICE STATION AND POLICE INSPECTOR, C.C.B., (F & M), BENGALURU BY STATE PUBLIC PROSECUTOR, HIGH COURT BUILDING, BENGALURU – 560001 2. KRISHNAMURTHY C.M. S/O. MAYAPPA AGED ABOUT 54 YEARS, OCC: BUSINESS, R/O.NO.242, PATTALAMMA LAYOUT, KADAGODI, BENGALURU – 560 066 ...RESPONDENTS (BY SRI.SANDESH J. CHOURTA, SPP FOR R-1; SRI.H.S.CHANDRAMOULI, ADV. FOR R-2) THIS CRIMINAL PETITION IS FILED UNDER SEC. 482 CR.P.C. PRAYING TO SET ASIDE THE ORDER DATED 06.08.2016 PASSED BY THE LXI ADDL. CITY CIVIL AND S.J., BENGALURU CITY IN CRL.R.P.NO.481/2015 AND DIRECT THE INVESTIGATION OFFICER, C.C.B, BENGALURU, FORTHWITH TO ATTACH ALL THE MOVABLE AND IMMOVABLE PROPERTIES OF THE ACCUSED PERSONS MENTIONED IN THE CHARGE SHEET IN C.C.NO.20121/2013 PENDING ON THE FILE OF I A.C.M.M., BENGALURU.
THIS CRIMINAL PETITION COMING ON FOR ADMISSION THIS DAY, THE COURT MADE THE FOLLOWING:
O R D E R Petitioner as an applicant in C.C.No.20121/2013 filed an application under Sections 105-C and 105-D of Cr.P.C. for attaching the properties (8 movable and immovable properties as per indicated in the mahazar and PFs drawn in C.C.No.20121/2013) contending interalia that accused has cheated several persons and induced about 3500 members of the chit business and had amassed wealth out of money generated from chit business by cheating the public. As such, applicant sought for attachment of the properties. Learned Magistrate by order dated 24.06.2015 allowed the application and ordered for attachment of properties as sought for.
2. Being aggrieved by the same, a revision petition came to be filed in Crl.R.P.No.481/2015 and Revisional Court by order dated 06.08.2016 allowed the revision petition and rejected the application.
3. Heard Sri. S.G. Rajendra Reddy, learned counsel appearing for petitioner, Sri.Sandesh J. Chouta, learned SPP appearing for respondent No.1 and Sri.H.S.Chandramouli, learned counsel appearing for respondent No.2. Perused the records.
4. It is the contention of Sri. S.G. Rajendra Reddy, learned counsel appearing for petitioner that learned Magistrate on entire appreciation of material had rightly attached the properties and now by virtue of order passed by the Revisional Court setting aside the same, there is likelihood of respondent No.2 alienating and/or encumbering the said properties. Hence, he prays for setting aside the same.
5. Having heard the learned Advocates appearing for parties and on perusal of case papers, it would disclose that Section 105-A of Cr.P.C. was inserted by Act 40 – 1993 w.e.f. 20.07.1994. The definition clause in Section 105-A of Cr.P.C. would clearly indicate that said provisions under Chapter VIIA would be applicable to the offences, which have international ramifications and to avoid the properties so earned from being dissipiated, State/ investigating agencies have been empowered to move the jurisdictional Courts for attachment of such properties that too, where there is reciprocal arrangements between contract States. Hence, learned Magistrate by relying upon the judgment of Apex Court in the case of MADHYA PRADESH Vs. BALARAM MIHANI AND OTHERS reported in (2010) 2 SCC (Cri.) 1070 has rightly arrived at a conclusion that said provision would be attracted only in respect of offences having international ramifications.
6. Said order passed by the learned Magistrate does not suffer from any infirmity either in law or on facts. Hence, criminal petition stands rejected. However, petitioner is at liberty to work out his rights in accordance with law.
SD/- JUDGE DR