STATE Vs. HARMUZDIAR

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This revision petition is filed seeking to set aside the order dated 26-11-2012 passed by the Principal Sessions Judge, Gulbarga/Special Judge in Special Case No. 71 of 2005, under which the Trial Court has returned the documents i.e., Bank deposit receipts, Indira Vikas Patras and share certificates belongs to the respondent who is facing the case for offences under the Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988. The charge against the respondent is that he was having assets disproportionate to his known source of income. It is seen from the order that the Special Judge has directed the respondent-accused to execute an indemnity bond for a sum equal to the matured value of the documents with an undertaking to pay the sum in the event of the amounts mentioned therein are liable to be forfeited/confiscated to the State. Sri A. Syed Habeeb, learned Counsel for the petitioner-Lokayukta submits that if the respondent-accused uses the said money for his personal requirement then, if the Special Court comes to the conclusion that the property is liable for confiscation there will be nothing left. Hence, he submits that the aforesaid order of Special Judge may be set aside.

(2.) It is seen that the case is of the year 2005 and the order has been passed on 26-11-2012. The petitioner has approached this Court after a lapse of almost one year from the date of order and by this time the respondent would be already secured the custody of the documents by executing the necessary indemnity bond as directed by the Special Judge. Hence I do not find any illegality or irregularity in the order passed by the Special Judge, since he has imposed condition that the respondent-accused should execute an indemnity bond with an undertaking to make good the loss, if any caused while confiscating the said amounts, if and when such need arises.