C. Narasimhamurthy Vs. the State of Karnataka and anr.

.....to the possession of the properties of his daughter within the meaning of section 452 of the code of criminal procedure, notwithstanding the provisions of hindu succession act, 1956. - section 17 & security interest (enforcement) amendment rules, 2007, rule 13 (as amended): [anand byrareddy, j] payment of prescribed court fee auction sale-appealed against under section 17 - question as to payment of court fee for appeals amendment to security interest (enforcement) rules, 2003 and introducing or rule 13 -court fees payable for applications and appeals - petitioner sought for the benefit of security interest rule, 2002 as amended - consideration of held, the imposition of liability to pay court-fees being a fiscal legislation it would be governed by the normal presumption that it is not retrospective, unless the wise provided expressly or by necessary implication. the above rule, however, applies to substantive provisions and does not apply to machinery or procedural provisions which are generally retrospective and apply even to pending proceedings. but even a procedural provision, as far as possible, will not be construed to open up liability which had become barred. further, as on the date of the petitioner filing the appeal, the petitioner has the benefit of a reprieve in view of the issue of court-fee pending before the supreme court and the petitioner had undertaken to pay the same depending in the result in the matter before the apex court. ultimately, when the petitioner did indeed pay the court-fees the security interest (enforcement) amendment rules, 2007 had come into effect and court-fees was aid in accordance with the same. the petitioner has paid the court fee as per the security interest rules prescribing a lesser court fee on the date the actual payment is made. this principle is well established in the working of fiscal legislation. further it cannot be said that the rules are given any retrospective effect as the court fee is paid on..........that, as rightly pointed put by the learned sessions judge, in terms of hindu succession act, 1956, it is r-2 chandrashekar who came to be called the person entitled to claim possession of m.o's-1 to 4 belonging to his wife, and that the claim of parijatha's father-the appellant herein, would arise only thereafter. there could be no disputing this position of law. but, what section 452 cr.p.c. contemplates is the delivery of the articles concerned to a person claiming to be entitled to possession thereof. though r-2 has come to be acquitted by this court, the fact nevertheless remains that he had been accused of having committed the murder of his wife and child, and had been sentenced to imprisonment for life. it is not the case of r-1 state that r-2 has, at any time, approached the learned sessions judge for return of the said m.o's-1 to 4. in the circumstances, there is no possibility of r-2 approaching the learned sessions judge claiming return of m.o's-1 to 4 belonging to his deceased wife, he himself having been accused of committing her murder though he has come to be acquitted of the said charge. in the circumstances of this case, therefore, notwithstanding the provisions of hindu succession act, 1956, it is the father of the deceased parijatha viz., the appellant, who could be called a person claiming to be entitled to possession of m.o's-1 to 4 within the meaning of section 452 cr.p.c.4. appeal is allowed, impugned order is set aside. m.o's-1 to 4 in s.c.no. 45/83 on the file of the learned additional sessions judge, bangalore rural district, bangalore, are directed to be returned to the appellant-narasimhamurthy, father of deceased parijatha.