T.K. LAKSHMINARAYANA REDDY Vs. STATE OF KARNATAKA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This Revision Petition is filed by the petitioner under Section 397 read with 401 of Cr.P.C. being aggrieved by the order dated 22.12.2018 passed by the II Additional District and Sessions Judge at Tumakuru in Crl.Misc.No.1206/2018, dismissing the application filed by the petitioner under Section 451 read with Section 457 of Cr.P.C.

(2.) The brief facts of the case of the petitioner before the Court below is that the respondent-Police registered the case in Cr.No.14/2012 against the petitioner for the offence punishable under Section 13(1)(e) read with Section 13(2) of the Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988 and during the raid, the Investigating Officer seized LIC Policy Bonds and freezed the Savings Bank Account of the petitioner. Subsequently, the petitioner moved an application in the Crl.Misc.No.1076/2016 under Section 451 and 457 of Cr.P.C, wherein, the trial Court defreezed the Savings Bank Account and permitted the petitioner to operate the same, however, directed to deposit the proceeds of LIC policy in Fixed Deposits in the said case. Subsequently, the petitioner again moved another application before the trial Court in Crl.Misc.No.1206/2018 on the ground that the marriage of his second daughter is scheduled to be held on 14th and 15th of February 2019 and required the fixed deposit amount to meet the financial expenses, which came to be dismissed by the Court below. It is this order which is under challenge.

(3.) The learned counsel for the petitioner contended that the trial Court dismissed the application solely on the ground that the said Court has already considered the very same prayer of the petitioner in the earlier occasion and rejected the same. Hence, the successive application cannot be considered as the said Court becomes functus officio. Therefore, learned counsel for the petitioner contended that the trial Court has not considered the application on merits. The said FD amount has already been calculated by the Investigating Officer in respect of the wealth of the petitioner. Learned counsel for the petitioner relied upon the judgment of the Hon'ble Apex Court in the case of Sunderbhai Ambalal Desai v. State of Gujarat reported in (2003 SCC (Crl.) 1943) and submitted that the petitioner is very much in need of money for the purpose of meeting the marriage expenses of his second daughter. Earlier, after dismissal of the application, he has not preferred any revision against the said order, as the trial Court has partly allowed the application and permitted the petitioner to operate the Savings Bank Account by defreezing the same. He is ready to execute the indemnified bond for the amount and hence, prayed for allowing the petition.