Anil Mahadev Patil v. State of Karnataka

ORDER

(i) This petition is hereby allowed;

(ii) The impugned order dated 20.02.2025 passed in Crl.RP.No.107/2024 by VI Additional District and Sessions Judge, Tumakuru, is hereby set-aside;

(iii) The application filed by the petitioners before the trial Court is allowed;

(iv) The trial Court is directed to grant interim custody of the movable properties claimed by the petitioners and release the same in favour of the petitioners after verifying the documents produced and to be produced by the petitioners, as expeditiously as possible."

¶4Subsequently, the petitioners requested the trial court in C.C.No.234/2025 to grant them custody by producing several documents including Invoices, Bills, receipts, vouchers, etc. By order dated 04.10.2025, the trial court however refused to accept the request of the petitioners, who approached the Sessions Court in Crl.R.P.No.77/2025, which was allowed by the Sessions Court which set aside the order of the trial court and directed the trial court to release the properties as per the directions of this Court in Crl.P.No.4339/2025 by holding as under:-

ORDERS ON PETITION FILED U/S 438 OF BNSS " This petition is filed U/s 438 of BNSS challenging the order and to set aside the order dated 04.10.2025 passed by the learned VI Additional Civil Judge & JMFC, Tumakuru in C.C.No.234/2025.

¶2Being aggrieved by the order dated 04.10.2025 passed by VI Additional Civil Judge & JMFC, Tumakuru Bengaluru in C.C.No.234/2025 the petitioner prefers this Criminal Revision Petition on following grounds. a. The order of the trial court and subsequent order are directly contrary to the explicit directions passed by the honorable High court of Karnataka. In Crl.P.No.4339/2025 dt.21.07.2025 which directed to release the property. b. The trial court has failed to provide fair opportunity to the petitioners to produce the additional documents as directed by the honorable High court of Karnataka and thereby violated the principles of natural justice. c. The trial court erred in stating that the GST certificate were xerox copies failing to appreciate that the certificate is digitally authenticated document, having a bar code and a digital certificate, which serves as conclusive proof of the petitioner's proprietorship lawful business. d. The trial court committed grave error by refusing even to consider the application for rectification/reconsideration wrongly citing lack of power to recall, which has resulted in the perpetuation or manifest justice. The trial court has inherent power to correct the

clerical error or mistake and re-evaluate its decision when a direction from superior court is disregarded. e. The petitioners are the lawful owners of the seized property. The continued retention of the silver articles and cash over a year, in contravention of the order caused severe and irreparable loss to the business of the petitioners. f. That the finding of the trial court that the petitioners had no representation on 18.08.2025 is factually incorrect and perverse, as the petitioners counsel was present and ready to submit the documents, which are annexed to the application.

¶3After service of notice the learned P.P for the respondent took notice but not filed objections.

¶04As the copies, impugned order and other relevant records were produced, hence the trial court records are dispensed with.

¶05Heard arguments of both sides.

¶06In view of the factors referred above, the point that arises for my consideration is:

¶1Whether the petitioners proves that the impugned order dated 04.10.2025 regarding not releasing the properties is perverse, illegal and needs to be interfered with ?

¶2What order ?

¶07My finding to the above points are as under :- Point No.1 : - In affirmative Point No.2 :- As per final order for the following: REASONS

¶08Point No.1 : - It is the allegation of the petitioners that the trial court has not obtained the

documents in order to release the properties in their favour. Hence the orders of the trial court is perverse and against law. It is the allegation of the petitioners that the trial court with out any basis and by not considering the ownership of the petitioners over the seized properties has wrongly dismissed the application.

¶09Admittedly the concerned police during the course of investigation has seized several items and reported in P.F before the trial court. That the petitioners have filed application seeking release of the seized properties into their custody. The said application was rejected by the trial court. Aggrieving by the said order the petitioners have filed this petition.

¶10The petitioners have filed several documents and also the orders of the honorable High court of Karnataka in Crl.P.No.4339/2025 dt.21.07.2025 wherein they have directed to release the properties. It is true that the trial has passed the detailed orders. But it is the grievance of the petitioners that the trial court have not received the documents in support of their application but passed the impugned order.

¶11Hence under these circumstances it is just and proper to direct the trial court to receive the documents which will be produced by the petitioners and then to pass the necessary orders. Accordingly, the revision petitioners have made out a ground to set aside the impugned order. Hence, I answered point No.1 in affirmative.

¶12Point No.2: For the reasons given to point No.1, I proceed to pass the following:

ORDER The revision petition filed by the petitioner U/Sec.438 of BNSS is hereby allowed. The order of the learned VI Additional Civil Judge & JMFC, Tumakuru, C.C.No.234/2025 dated 04.10.2025 against the revision petitioners is hereby set-aside. The trial court is hereby directed to release the properties as per direction and order of honorable High court of Karnataka in Cr.P.No.4339/2025 to the interim custody of the revision petitioners by verifying all necessary documents and as per procedure of law. The revision petitioners are hereby directed to furnish all necessary documents to the satisfaction of the trial court in order to release the properties. Send copy of this order to the trial court for information."

¶5Subsequently, the matter in C.C.No.234/2025 having been committed to the Sessions Court in S.C.No.194/2025, the Sessions Court proceeded to pass the impugned order dated

12.02.2026 rejecting the application for custody filed by the petitioners under Sections 497 and 503 of BNSS, 2023, aggrieved by which, petitioners are before this Court by way of the present petition.

¶6A perusal of the impugned order will indicate that despite the aforesaid order passed by this Court in Crl.P.No.4339/2025 dated 21.07.2025 allowing the application for custody filed by the petitioners, pursuant to which, the Sessions Court also allowed Crl.R.P.No.77/2025 dated 23.01.2026, thereby directing release of the properties in favour of the petitioners and the said orders having attained finality and become conclusive and binding upon not only the respondents but also the trial court and the Sessions court, the Sessions Court has failed to consider and appreciate the said orders as well as the various documents produced by the petitioners; the Sessions court failed to consider and appreciate that its role was limited / restricted to merely verifying the documents produced by the petitioners and release the properties which were undisputedly seized from the vehicle of the petitioners which had been abandoned by the accused persons, pursuant to the complaint given by the petitioners and in the light of the undisputed fact that the vehicle and properties mentioned in the complaint lodged by the petitioners had been seized by the respondents, the petitioners who had produced several documents

including receipts, bills, invoices etc., were clearly entitled to interim custody of the properties by imposing certain conditions.

¶7It is also relevant to state that the Sessions Court failed to consider and appreciate that having regard to the undisputed fact that the application for custody of the properties having been allowed by this Court in Crl.P.No.4339/2025 dated 21.07.2025 and reiterated by the Sessions Court itself in Crl.R.P.No.77/2025 dated

23.01.2026 and both the orders having attained finality and become conclusive and binding upon the Sessions Court, the Sessions court was not entitled to reconsider / review / revisit the said orders nor the application filed by the petitioners all over again by passing the impugned order which deserves to be quashed on this ground also. Further, the Sessions court also failed to consider and appreciate the various documents produced by the petitioners which clearly established that they are entitled to custody as ordered by this Court and reiterated by the Sessions Court supra. Under these circumstances, I am of the view that the impugned order passed by the Sessions Court dated 12.02.2026 in S.C.No.194/2025 deserves to be set aside and Sessions Court be

directed to release the properties to the petitioners, subject to certain conditions to be imposed in this regard.

¶8In the result, I pass the following:- ORDER

(i) Petition is hereby allowed;

(ii) The impugned order dated 12.02.2026 passed in S.C.No.194/2025 by the VI Addl.District and Sessions Judge, Tumakuru, is hereby set aside.

(iii) The Sessions court is hereby directed to release the subject properties / articles sought for by the petitioners immediately upon receipt of a copy of this order, subject to the following conditions;

(a) The Sessions Court shall ensure that photography and videography of the subject properties / articles are taken prior to release in favour of the petitioners;

(b) The petitioners shall execute indemnity bond(s) in favour of the Sessions Court for the purpose of obtaining release of the subject properties / articles;

(c) The petitioners shall produce the subject properties / articles as and when required by the Sessions Court and shall not change or alter their nature or character in any manner whatsoever.

Sd/- (S.R.KRISHNA KUMAR) JUDGE

SS/SRL List No.: 1 Sl No.: 2

IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU DATED THIS THE 29TH DAY OF APRIL, 2026 BEFORE THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE S.R.KRISHNA KUMAR CRIMINAL PETITION NO. 2737 OF 2026 BETWEEN: 1. ANIL MAHADEV PATIL S/O MAHADEV PATIL TRANSPORT BUSINESS AGE 47, OCC BUSINESSMAN R/O VAITHY STREET, SHEVPET SALEM TAMIL NADU - 636 002 ADHAR CARD NO - 692662702672 2. VINOD DHONDIRAM MALI S/O DHONDIRAM MALI PROPRIETOR OF TANVI PAYAL SALEM AGE 38, OCC BUSINESSMAN R/O SHEVPET SALEM. TAMIL NADU - 636 002 ADHAR CARD NO - 302126374010 3. NITIN NARAYAN MALI S/O NARAYAN MALI PROPRIETOR OF OM SILVER,SALEM AGE 48, OCC BUSINESSMAN R/O VAITHY STREET, SHEVPET SALEM TAMIL NADU - 636 002 ADHAR CARD NO - 418941436624 4. AJMUDDIN YAKUB MULANI S/O YAKUB MULANI PROPRIETOR OF N.S.PAYALS AGE 43, OCC BUSINESSMAN R/O PAIKARA STREET, SHEVPET SALEM TAMIL NADU 636002 ADHAR CARD NO - 711956477151 by CHANDANA B M Location: High Court of Karnataka 5. SANJAY KASHINATH MALI S/O KASHINATH MALI PROPRIETOR OF VISHWAJEETH PAYAL SALEM AGE 43, OCC BUSINESSMAN R/O LAXMI IYER STREET, SHEVPET SALEM TAMIL NADU - 636 002 ADHAR CARD NO - 649710159029 6. NANDAKUMAR RAMCHANDRA GIDDE RAMCHANDRA GIDDE PROPRIETOR OF SWAPNALI PAYALS SELAM AGE 60, OCC BUSINESSMAN R/O LAXMI IYER STREET, SHEVPET SALEM TAMIL NADU - 636 002 ADHAR CARD NO -474611854756 7. R BHAGWANSAIT YADAV S/O RAMCHANDRAN PROPRIETOR OF M/S SRI SIDDHESHWAR JEWELLERY SALEM AGE 48, OCC BUSINESSMAN R/O MARKET STREET, GUGAI SALEM TAMIL NADU 636002 ADHAR CARD NO - 650117496337 8. A SHABBER AHAMADH S/O ABDUL PROPRIETOR OF MOKESH JEWELLERS AGE 43, OCC BUSINESSMAN R/O NAKKERER STREET GUGAI SALEM TAMIL NADU - 636 002 ADHAR CARD NO - 644469043618 9. THATYYASHAIEB MARUTI MORE S/O KRISHNA MARUTI MORE PROPRIETOR OF YASHODA PAYALS AGE 57, OCC BUSINESSMAN R/O LAKSMI LYER STREET, SHEVPET SALEM TAMIL NADU - 636 002 ADHAR CARD NO - 817901452101 10. D SHANTARAM DADASO CHANNE S/O DADASO RAMCHADRAN CHANNE PROPRIETOR OF SHIV MALAR TRADERS AGE, OCC BUSINESSMAN R/O VARDHAPPAN STREET, SALEM TAMIL NADU - 636 002 ADHAR CARD NO - 854506769585 11. S. BALU S/O SELVAM PROPRIETOR OF P.S. SILVER PAYALS AGE 38, OCC: BUSINESSMAN R/O OM SAKTHI NAGAR SALEM TAMIL NADU 636002 ADHAR CARD NO - 625437795064 12. SUVASKUMAR ASHOK RAO S/O ASHOK RAO PROPRIETOR OF SHRI SILVER WORKS AGE 37, OCC BUSINESSMAN R/O LAXMI LYER STREET, SHEVPET SALEM TAMIL NADU 636 002. 13. RANJEETHKUMAR RAJA S/O RAJARAM PROPRIETOR OF M/S RISHI SILVER AGE 36, OCC BUSINESSMAN R/O SAMBALINGMOORTHI STREET, SHEVPET SALEM TAMIL NADU - 636 002 ADHAR CARD NO - 662404711695 14. RAJENDRAN SOMANATHAN S/O RAJARAM PROPRIETOR OF P.S.R. JWELLERS AGE 55, OCC BUSINESSMAN R/O OM SAKTHI NAGAR SALEM TAMIL NADU - 636 002 ADHAR CARD NO - 557992346822 15. SOMNATH JAYWANT SHINDE S/O JAYWANT SHINDE PROPRIETOR OF SHRI MEENAKSHI SILVER MANUFACTURES TRADE AGE 48, OCC BUSINESSMAN R/O,SHEVPET SALEM TAMIL NADU 636002 ADHAR CARD NO -779615773071 16. P.SATHIYA NARAYANAN S/O PERUMAL PROPRIETOR OF MAB SILVERS AGE 46,: OCC BUSINESSMAN R/O PERIYA KINARU STREET SALEM TAMIL NADU 636002 ADHAR CARD NO - 428340516402 17. PRAVIN TANAJI SHETKE S/O TANAJI AGE 45, : OCC BUSINESSMAN R/O HUPARI MAHARASHTRA - 416203 ADHAR CARD NO - 409116349385 18. VISHAL TANAJI SHETKE S/O TANAJI AGE 47, : OCC BUSINESSMAN R/O HUPARI MAHARASHTRA ADHAR CARD NO - 965627610950 …PETITIONERS (BY SMT. ARATI RAVICHANDRA, ADVOCATE) AND: STATE OF KARNATAKA KORA POLICE STATION REPRESENTED BY S.P.P HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA BANGALURU - 560 001 …RESPONDENT (BY SRI. DIWAKAR MADDUR, HCGP) THIS CRL.P IS FILED U/S 482 CR.PC (FILED U/S 528 BNSS) PRAYING TO QUASH/ SET ASIDE THE IMPUGNED ORDER DTD 12.02.2026 PASSED IN S.C.NO.194/2025 AS PER ANNEXURE-D AND ETC. THIS PETITION, COMING ON FOR ADMISSION, THIS DAY, ORDER WAS MADE THEREIN AS UNDER: CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE S.R.KRISHNA KUMAR ORAL ORDER In this petition, petitioners have sought for the following reliefs:- " a) Set aside the impugned order dated: 12.02.2026 passed in S.C. No.194/2025. As per Annexure-B b) Direct the Trial Court to Rele