The Karnataka High Court has refused to quash proceedings initiated against a police inspector for keeping Rs 72 lakh cash seized in a case with himself.
The court dismissed the petition filed by Shankar Naik GK, who is at present working as police inspector of Bidadi police station, observing that the disputed maze of facts prima facie depict a crime thriller.
The petitioner challenged the registration of a crime against him under IPC sections 409, 465, 201, 110 and section 7 of the Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988. On October 11, 2021, while serving as police inspector of Byatarayanapura police station, Shankar Naik had seized Rs 72 lakh cash in a theft case.
The theft case was transferred twice, once to the Assistant Commissioner of Police (ACP), Kengeri gate Sub-Division and later to ACP, Byatarayanapura Sub-Division.
On January 27, 2023, inspector Naik was transferred and posted as police inspector, Anekal police station. State Public Prosecutor BA Belliappa submitted that despite notices and reminders issued, the petitioner inspector failed to deposit the seized cash in the treasury even after his transfer from Byatarayanapura police station.
On February 27, 2023, the Magistrate court directed Byatarayanapura police to hand over the seized amount to the officials of the Income-Tax Department, on the application filed by the latter under CrPC sections 451 and 457.
The prosecution stated that a day earlier to this order passed by the magistrate, the inspector visited the Byatarayanapura police with a bag containing the cash and placed the same in the station. However, there was a mismatch in the denominations of currency that was seized.
Justice Nagaprasanna noted that from February 2 to 26 in 2023, the petitioner had not handed over charge of the post of police inspector at Byatarayanapura police station, notwithstanding the fact that he was transferred to Anekal police station.
The court also observed that according to the statement of the complainant in the theft case, the inspector had demanded a bribe of Rs 20 lakh to release Rs 72 lakh.
“In the teeth of the afore-narrated maze of facts, what is discernible is that the petitioner did not deposit the amount seized to the Treasury after marking it as property folio.
Hence, it would prima facie reveal that the entire amount of Rs 72 lakhs was in the custody of the petitioner from October 20, 2022 till February 26, 2023 for about 4 months and the earlier Enquiry Officer, who conducted preliminary enquiry has himself observed that CCTV footage clearly indicates that the petitioner comes to the Police Station long after his relieving order, keeps the amount of seizure and goes away,” Justice Nagaprasanna said.
The court further said that there was a marked difference between the portfolio (PF) entered on seizure of the amount and the return of it, as there was complete change of denominations of notes.
“Therefore, two factors would emerge – one, the petitioner keeping the amount with him without depositing it to the Treasury and the other, tampering with PF by changing the denomination of notes. These factors prima facie would meet the ingredients of the crime that is alleged against the petitioner.”