THE PR COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX CIT A vs. M/S CENTURY LINK TECHNOLOGY INDIA PVT LTD

IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU DATED THIS THE 25TH DAY OF SEPTEMBER, 2025 BEFORE THE HON'BLE MR JUSTICE ANANT RAMANATH HEGDE CRIMINAL REVISION PETITION NO.467 OF 2016 BETWEEN:

MAHESH JOSHI, S/O LATE H.G. JOSHI, AGED ABOUT 58 YEARS, RESIDING AT 'GURU GOVINDA KRUPA', NO.10, 16TH MAIN, R.K. LAYOUT, III STAGE, PADHMANABHANAGAR, BANGALORE - 560 070. ...PETITIONER (BY SRI C.V. SUDHINDRA, ADVOCATE)

AND:

CENTRAL BUREAU OF INVESTIGATION, REPRESENTED BY SRI B. PANEERSELVAM S/O G. BALA SELVAM, AGED ABOUT 60 YEARS, INSPECTOR OF POLICE & INVESTIGATION OFFICE, CBI/SPE, GANGANAGAR, BENGALURU - 560 032. ...RESPONDENT

(BY SRI P PRASANNA KUMAR, SPL.P.P. WITH SMT ANITHA KRISHNAMURTHY, ADVOCATE)

THIS CRL.RP IS FILED UNDER SECTION 397 READ WITH SECTION 401 OF CR.P.C. PRAYING TO SET ASIDE THE ORDER DATED 29.11.2014 IN CRL.MISC.NO.3616/2009 ON FILE THE SPECIAL JUDGE FOR CBI CASES, BANGALORE AND DIRECT THE RESPONDENT POLICE TO RETURN INDIRA VIKAS PATRA.

THIS PETITION HAVING BEEN HEARD AND RESERVED FOR ORDERS ON 30TH AUGUST, 2025 AND COMING ON FOR PRONOUNCEMENT THIS DAY, THE COURT PRONOUNCED THE FOLLOWING:

CORAM: HON'BLE MR JUSTICE ANANT RAMANATH HEGDE

2 CAV ORDER

Petitioner is assailing the order dated 29.11.2014 on the file of the Sessions Judge and Special Judge for Central Bureau of Investigation Cases (CCH-47) at Bengaluru in Criminal Miscellaneous Case No.3616/2009. 2. In terms of the impugned order, petitioner's application for return of 10 Indira Vikas Patras is rejected and at the same time, liberty is reserved to the petitioner to take appropriate action in accordance with law for redressal of petitioner's greviance if any, due to missing of 8 sheets. 3. Certain admitted facts are as under: - A complaint came to be registered against the petitioner by the Central Bureau of Investigation (CBI) bearing No. R.C.No.10(A)/2000. Pursuant to the said complaint in which the petitioner was arrayed as accused No.4, a search was conducted at the petitioner's residential premises and the CBI has seized certain documents from the petitioner's custody. 4. Petitioner assailed the complaint registered against him in R.C.No.10(A)/2000 and in Crl.P.No.937/2001. The petition was allowed and the complaint was quashed. CBI had questioned the order passed by this Court quashing the

3 complaint bearing No. R.C.No.10(A)/2000 before the Apex Court and Apex Court vide order dated 01.02.2002 dismissed the Special Leave Petition. 5. In Crl.A.No.904/2002 initiated by the petitioner, this Court ordered return of documents except item Nos.4 and 21 in the search list prepared by the CBI. On 10.07.2009, this Court directed the CBI to return missing Indira Vikas Patras which were said to have been seized and the petitioner filed a Criminal Miscellaneous Case No.3616/2009. The said petition was dismissed in terms of the impugned order. Hence, the present petition. 6. The petitioner claims that he had purchased 10 Indira Vikas Patras of Rs.2,500/- each and they were seized by the CBI officials and kept in box at item No.24 and when the Court directed the CBI to return the documents kept in box at item No.24, 10 Indira Vikas Patras seized by the CBI officials were not returned. Hence, the petitioner made a claim for return of the said Indira Vikas Patras and in the alternative, the value of said Indira Vikas Patras as on the date of the application.

4 7. CBI opposed the said application on the premise that Indira Vikas Patras claimed by the petitioner were not seized. 8. The Trial Court on considering the contentions raised by both the parties, in terms of the impugned order has rejected the application. While passing the impugned order, the Trial Court has framed two points for consideration: "(a) Whether the respondent had seized ten Indira Vikas Patras belonging to the petitioner? (b) If so, whether the petitioner is entitled to return of such Indira Vikas Patras or alternatively, the value of those documents?"

5 12. The petitioner has received sheets from 1 to 26, 29 to 34, 37 to 93, 97 to 276 and 278 to 315. The dispute is in respect of sheet Nos.27, 28, 35, 36, 94, 95, 96 and 277 in the said box at item No.24. 13. The application is filed before the Trial Court on the premise that the petitioner had purchased 10 Indira Vikas Patras of Rs.2500/- each and those Indira Vikas Patras were also seized on 17.05.2000 when the raid was conducted and the missing sheets referred to above are the Indira Vikas Patras purchased by the petitioner. 14. The Trial Court has rejected the petitioner's claim as the petitioner has not produced any document to show that he had purchased 10 Indira Vikas Patras prior to 09.11.1995. 15. The Trial Court also rejected the petitioner's claim on the premise that documents are not produced to show that 10 Indira Vikas Patras were seized from the petitioner's residence. 16. The Trial Court has also held that the petitioner being a Central Government employee, under Rule 16 of Indian Service (Conduct) Rules, 1968, was required to furnish details about the purchase of Indira Vikas Patras to the competent authority when he submitted his annual statement of assets

6 and liability. The trial Court held that without such statement being furnished by the petitioner, it is not possible to hold that the petitioner did purchase those 10 Indira Vikas Patras and drew adverse inference against the petitioner. 17. In addition to that, the Trial Court also held that application at Ex.D.1 and Ex.D.2 seeking return of seized materials did not reflect anything about 10 Indira Vikas Patras and the trial Court came to the conclusion that the petitioner would have mentioned about Indira Vikas Patras in Exs.D1 and D2 - applications filed for release of other documents named therein. 18. Referring to the label to Item No.24 which reads as "One box file containing papers relating to salary received by Sri. Mahesh Joshi and copy of Income Tax Returns etc.", the trial Court inferred that box does not indicate that Indira Vikas Patras are kept in the said box. 19. The trial Court has also referred to certain other items like National Savings Certificates, Insurance Policies, Sale Agreements, Demand Drafts, Pass Books in other boxes and come to the conclusion that Indira Vikas Patras could not have been kept in Box No.24.

7 20. It is also observed by the Trial Court that the petitioner was not at home when the documents were seized and his wife was there at the seizure place and the wife should have been examined to establish the seizure of Indira Vikas Patras. Resting its order on these reasons, the Trial Court concluded that Indira Vikas Patras were not seized from the petitioner's custody as alleged by the petitioner. 21. The Trial Court also referred to the cross examination of RW1 and came to the conclusion that nothing is elicited in the cross examination of RW1 to hold that Indira Vikas Patras were seized. 22. Learned counsel appearing for the petitioner would urge that the cross examination of RW1 is not considered in proper perspective and same resulted in miscarriage of justice. 23. It is also urged that the petitioner has established that the Indira Vikas patras are seized and the respondent is liable to return the same. 24. Learned Counsel for the petitioner would also submit that the petitioner had filed a suit claiming damages alleging malicious prosecution and said suit is decreed and would urge that the illegal seizure can be inferred on the premise that the false complaint is filed against the petitioner.

8 25. Learned Counsel for the respondent defended the impugned order. 26. This Court has also referred to the cross examination of RW1. 27. Relevant portion of cross examination of RW1 reads as under: "I have segregated all the valuable securities, seized them by writing their printed Serial Number and denomination in the search list itself. Therefore I have stated that a cover said to contain IVP was not one of the missing number. It is not correct to say that it is only by memory and not by the search list I have prepared that I am saying so. In the search list itself I have mentioned the printed serial number and the denomination of the valuable securities like currency notes and NSC. It is true that in the search list I have not mentioned that I have segregated valuable securities or any other document seized. I have no documents to show that I have segregated all documents before seizer. Only from my memory I say that I segregated the documents."

9 the search list are missing. The Trial Court has also held that some of the items in the search list are missing. 30. In the cross examination, RW1 has stated that item No.24 contained documents of different categories unconnected to each other. RW1 admitted that it is not possible to describe each and every document as the file contained more than 100 sheets. 31. In paragraphs No.32 and 34 of the impugned order, the Trial Court has elaborately discussed about the documents found in Item No.24. The Trial Court has also referred to the direction issued to the concerned Second Divisional Assistant to search for the items in the box No.24. 32. The trial Court has concluded that when Item No.24 was handed over to the custody of the Court all sheets bearing No.1 to 315 were in the box. The trial Court opined that the missing sheets might have been missed after it was handed over to the Court. However, at the same time, the trial Court has come to the conclusion that materials are not available to hold that missing sheets are the Indira Vikas Patras in the name of the petitioner. 33. On perusal of the cross examination of RW-1 which is relied on by the learned counsel for the petitioner, it is not

10 possible to conclusively hold that the Indira Vikas Patras were kept in Item No.24. Nevertheless, the Trial Court has held that the petitioner is at liberty to take such action as advised in law to claim eight missing sheets or the loss on account of eight missing sheets. 34. Learned counsel for the petitioner would also urge that the carelessness and negligence on the part of the authorities in seizing the materials in not preparing the proper and accurate list is also very much evident from the cross examination. 35. There is justification in the submission made by the learned counsel for the petitioner. The officials have not prepared the accurate and proper list of documents seized from the custody of the petitioner. The excuse that the documents were huge in number is not a justification. This may not be the proper explanation or reason not to prepare the proper list of documents seized. 36. However, at the same time, the reasons assigned by the Trial Court for rejecting the application for return of documents are plausible reasons incapable of correction in exercise of jurisdiction under Section 397 of the Code of Civil Procedure.

11 37. This being the position, this Court does not find any reason to interfere in the order passed by the Trial Court in this Criminal Revision Petition in exercise of jurisdiction under Section 397 of the Criminal Procedure Code. 38. However, it is required to be noticed that the petitioner had also filed the suit for damages alleging malicious prosecution. The said suit in O.S. No.1400/2003 on the file of IX Additional City Civil Judge, Bengaluru is decreed awarding Rs.2,50,000/- damages against defendants No.1 and 2, the then officers of Central Bureau of Investigation along with cost and interest at the rate of 6% per annum from the date of the suit till the realisation. 39. It is submitted that the decree is yet to be executed. 40. The learned counsel for the petitioner would submit that the petitioner is unable to trace the address of the said defendants and would urge that the respondent-Central Bureau of Investigation be directed to furnish the address of the defendants in the said suit to take the decree for damages to the logical end. 41. The decree in O.S. No.1400/2003 is not in dispute under challenge. Admittedly the defendants in the said suit were

12 employees of the respondent and must be drawing pension after retirement and respondent must be having the address of the defendants. 42. The respondent-Central Bureau of Investigation shall furnish the current address of the defendants in the said suit to the petitioner. 43. In addition, the respondent shall ensure that whenever the materials are seized pursuant to the authority conferred under law, list of seized materials are properly listed with necessary particulars to identify the documented seized. 44. With these observations, the petition is dismissed. 45. The particulars of the current address of the defendants in O.S.No.1400/2003 on the file of IX Additional City Civil Judge, Bengaluru shall be furnished to the petitioner, by the respondent within 30 days from the receipt of the copy of this order. Sd/- (ANANT RAMANATH HEGDE) JUDGE

CHS/GVP...