- 1 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:22672 CRL.A No. 972 of 2023 IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU DATED THIS THE 27TH DAY OF JUNE, 2025 BEFORE THE HON'BLE MR JUSTICE S RACHAIAH CRIMINAL APPEAL NO. 972 OF 2023 (A) BETWEEN: MRS. MEENA VIJAY AGED 72 YEARS W/O LATE K VIJAY, R/AT PAI TOWERS C/O PAI ASSOCIATES SEEDINA GUDDA UDUPI – 576 101 PRESENTLY R/AT NO. 9/5-2, 1ST FLOOR OUT HOUSE, 6TH CROSS, 2ND A MAIN GOVINDARAJNAGAR, BENGALURU – 560 040 EMAIL. meenavijay19501@gmail.com PHONE. NO. 8618209165 …APPELLANT (BY SRI. PRAKASH M H., ADVOCATE) AND: STATE BY CBI (BS AND FC) NO-36, BELLARY ROAD, GANGANAGAR, BENGALURU – 560 032 …RESPONDENT (BY SRI. P. PRASANNA KUMAR, ADVOCATE A/W SRI. RAHUL KRISHNA REDDY P., ADV.) THIS CRL.A IS FILED UNDER SECTION 454 CR.PC PRAYING TO SET ASIDE THE IMPUGNED ORDER DATED 21.03.2023 ONLY IN RESPECT OF EX. P 234, EX P 237 AND EX P 238 PASSED IN SPL.C.C.NO.245/2002 BY THE COURT OF XLVII ADDL.CITY CIVIL AND SESSIONS JUDGE AND SPL.JUDGE FOR CBI CASES, BENGALURU AND ALLOW THE APPEAL. THIS APPEAL, COMING ON FOR ADMISSION, THIS DAY, JUDGMENT WAS DELIVERED THEREIN AS UNDER: Digitally signed by SREEDHARAN BANGALORE SUSHMA LAKSHMI Location: High Court of Karnataka - 2 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:22672 CRL.A No. 972 of 2023 CORAM: HON'BLE MR JUSTICE S RACHAIAH ORAL JUDGMENT 1. This Criminal Appeal is filed by the appellant, being aggrieved by the impugned order dated 21.03.2023 passed in Spl.C.C. No.245/2002 on the file of the XLVII Additional City Civil and Sessions Judge and Special Judge for CBI cases, Bengaluru (CCH-48). Factual matrix of the case: 2. Appellant /accused No.6 is the sole legal heir of accused No.2. She filed an application seeking for returning of the original documents namely Exhibits P234, P237 and P238. However, the Trial Court opined that the Form No.32 issued by the Registrar of Companies disclosed the names of other Directors of A-8 Company. Therefore, the Trial Court rejected the application on the ground that the applicant had not obtained any authorization by the other Directors. 3. Heard Sri Prakash M.H., learned counsel for the appellant and learned counsel Sri P. Prasanna Kumar along with Sri - 3 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:22672 CRL.A No. 972 of 2023 Rahul Krishna Reddy P., learned counsel for the respondent. 4. It is the submission of the learned counsel for the appellant / applicant that the criminal case has been acquitted against all the accused. The applicant being the legal heir of accused No.2, she is entitled for receiving the documents after the case has ended in acquittal. 5. It is further submitted that, when there are no rival claimants to the application on the said documents, the Court has to pass suitable orders to return those documents which are not required for any other purposes. The findings of the Trial Court in rejecting the application are erroneous and not proper and therefore, the appeal has to be allowed. Making such submissions, learned counsel for the appellant prays to allow the appeal. 6. Per contra, learned counsel for the respondent vehemently justified the order passed by the Trial Court by stating that when the documents are relating to the Company, which is arraigned as accused No.8, without necessary requisition or authorization by the other Directors, it cannot be appropriate to return the - 4 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:22672 CRL.A No. 972 of 2023 documents to one of the Directors. Therefore, the order of the Trial Court is appropriate and proper. Interference with the said findings need not be arisen. Making such submissions, learned counsel for the respondent prays to dismiss the appeal. 7. Having heard learned counsel for the respective parties and also perused the findings of the Trial Court, the factual matrix of the case is that, the CBI registered a case against all the accused and the said case has been tried by the Special Court in Spl.C.C. No.245/2002 c/w Spl.C.C.No.84/2008. The said cases have been ended in acquittal, as per the record. 8. When an applicant filed an application seeking for releasing the documents which were seized during investigation and there are no rival claimants available for the said documents, it is appropriate to release the documents to the applicant. However, the Trial Court gone beyond the scope of releasing the documents, without any sufficient reasons for rejecting the said application, which is erroneous and not proper. - 5 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:22672 CRL.A No. 972 of 2023 9. It is needless to say that the appellant / applicant is also one of the accused in the said case and the same has been ended in acquittal. Any objections would be raised by the other Directors or any future things will happen if such application is allowed to the said applicant is not within the scope and ambit of the Trial Court to consider the application of the applicant, once the case is ended in acquittal. 10. In the light of the observations made above, I proceed to pass the following:- ORDER i) The Criminal Appeal is allowed. ii) The Trial Court is directed to return the documents, namely Exhibits P234, P237 and P238, to the appellant on proper verification and identification, by obtaining its certified copies. Sd/- (S RACHAIAH) JUDGE SD/BSS List No.: 1 Sl No.: 44