RAJESHWARI Vs. STATE BY LOKAYUKTHA POLICE CHITRADURGA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The petitioner in this petition has challenged the legality and correctness of the order of the Court below dismissing the application filed by her under Section 457 of Criminal Procedure Code, 1973. The said application had been filed by her praying for interim custody of certain items like cash, FDRs, passbooks of her bank accounts and some articles seized during the course of investigation in connection with Spl. C. (PCA) No. 11 of 2011, which case had been registered by the respondent-Lokayukta Police against one S.T. Gowdar, who was working as Deputy Commissioner of Excise at the relevant point of time. It is the case of the petitioner that she does not know S.T. Gowdar. He was introduced to her by her brother, Malatesh Virupakshappa Sidaganal of Kakola Village. Her brother asked her to allow the accused to stay in her house as a paying guest as the accused wanted home-made food, as he was suffering from hypertension, diabetes, joint pain and other diseases. Therefore, the accused was staying as a guest in her house and all the articles that have been seized found in her house by the police belong to her. On account of the seizure of the cash, passbooks, she is unable to provide education to her son who has appeared for Pre-University examination and intending to join professional college. As the bank accounts have been seized at the instance of the Investigating Officer, she is unable to operate those accounts. The Lokayukta Police have unnecessarily attempted to make a nexus of her with the accused with a ultimate goal of harassing her. She has no nexus of whatsoever with the accused S.T. Gowdar. He does not belong to her family at all. Though she has given complete explanation with regard to the items seized from the house, yet the police have not accepted her explanation. On the other hand, they have proceeded to seize the documents adverted to above.

(2.) It is also her case that her husband S. Kannagowdar was a landlord and a businessman. He had good source of income and whatever he had earned had been kept in her name before his death. He had given many items to her by obtaining receipts and the same have been produced by her. She also contended that she has obtained receipts for having sold vegetables grown in her land during the relevant period from 1997 to 2011 and has produced the same along with the application. She also further contended one Virupakshappa Hanumappa Sidaganal executed a Will in her favour on 8-6-2001 bequeathing an extent of 2 acres 3 guntas of land. She is also running a beauty parlour and a Jari Stitching Work Training Centre. She had income from the said business also. Her brothers had executed gift deeds in her favour by giving cash to her and if at all the gift tax is to be paid, she is ready to pay the same. She has also produced an agreement of sale dated 30-1-2009 for having sold 3 acres 14 guntas of land situated in Sy. No. 93/2B in favour of one Homanna by receiving an amount of Rs. 7,00,000/- as advance sale consideration and that money was with her. The money that had been paid by her brothers and the mother were all invested by her in fixed deposits and therefore, all the amounts available in the FDRs seized in the case belong to her. In view of the same, the same be released in her favour for interim custody and she is prepared to abide by any condition.

(3.) The said application was opposed by the respondent-Lokayukta Police. The Lokayukta Police in their objections, inter alia among other things contended, the applicant had no independent income of her own as claimed in the application. The documents that have been produced by her are fictitious and have been got-up for the purposes of the case. All the articles, cash, FD receipts and other belongings that has been seized were from the house where the petitioner was living with the accused-S.T. Gowdar, as husband and wife. According to the Lokayukta Police, the applicant was not on cordial terms with her parents and she had married her husband S. Kannagowdar on 6-10-1990 against their wishes. The marriage of the applicant with S. Kannagowdar was a registered marriage. He died on 9-1-1997. Till then, the applicant was residing at Ranebennuru and then shifted her residence in the year 2006 at the time when the accused-S.T. Gowdar was transferred from Haveri to Davanagere. It was also contended that the applicant got her son admitted to Bapuji High School, Davanagere and at that time while mentioning the occupation of her son's father, she has mentioned the same as Excise Deputy Commissioner and the address as Office of the Deputy Commissioner of Excise, Davanagere. Even at the time she has opened the bank accounts, she has given the name of her husband as that of S.T. Gowdar. Likewise, she has also given the name of her husband as S.T. Gowdar while taking telephone connection and L.P. Gas connection. Therefore, according to them, the accused-S.T. Gowdar has amassed wealth in benami name of the applicant. The case is registered against S.T. Gowdar under the provisions of the Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988 under Section 13(1)(e) read with Section 13(2). Therefore, they contended that as these articles which are sought for interim custody by the applicant do have a bearing with the case registered by them against S.T. Gowdar, the application does not merit any consideration hence it be dismissed.