STATE Vs. RAMA REDDY

JUDGEMENT

(1.) HEARD.

(2.) THIS revision is directed against the order dated 17-4-2001 passed by the Special Judge, Banglore Urban and Rural District, Bangalore city, in Crl Mis. No. 359 of 2001 whereby the Special Judge allowed the application, gled by the respondent and directed the revision petitioner-Lokayukta to release cash of Rs, 1,03,250/- to the interim custody of this respondent on his executing an indemnity bond with one solvent surety. Feeling aggrieved by the said order the State has come up with this revision mainly on the ground that the cash ordered to be released by the Special Judge is required for identification.

(3.) THE case of the revision petitioner-State is that the respondent is working as a Revenue Inspector. On 4-1-2000 the Lokayukta police have raided the house of the respondent and seized the cash, articles, documents, etc. , and found properly worth Rs. 85,50,000/- disproportionate to his known sources of income. Therefore, the cash of Rs. 1,03,250/- have been seized from the possession of the accused from his house. When the case was under investigation the respondent herein has filed an application before the Special Judge for release of the cash. Accordingly, after hearing both sides the application came to be allowed and the said amount was ordered to be released to the interim custody of the respondent accused. In this behalf the learned High Court Government Pleader submitted that cash is very much required for identification during trial, but the Trial Court without taking note of this fact has directed the revision petitioner-State to release the said cash to the interim custody of the respondent herein, which is against the settled principle of law. And further it is maintained that the Trial Court has not insisted this respondent to furnish a Bank guarantee for the like sum. Therefore, the order under revision is illegal and incorrect.