The Karnataka High Court rejected the State's criminal revision petition filed under CrPC Sections 397 and 401. The Court held that there was no merit in the petition to set aside an order releasing a seized vehicle after imposing conditions, relying on principles laid down in Sunderbai Ambalal Desai.
the petition is rejected.
This page shows the compact analysis of this judgement. The full analysis — procedural history, issue-by-issue holdings with ratio and obiter, advocates, and paragraph-level evidence for every claim — is being added to the record in batches and will appear here when this judgement has been through it.
1
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BANGALORE
DATED THIS THE 14TH DAY OF OCTOBER, 2014
BEFORE
THE HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE ANAND BYRAREDDY
CRIMINAL REVISION PETITION No.90 OF 2013
BETWEEN:
The State represented by Public Prosecutor.
…PETITIONER (By Shri. K.R. Keshava Murthy, State Public Prosecutor -1)
AND:
Sri. Raju Marati, Aged about 29years, Son of Malthu Marati, Residing Ganganadu, Maiyyadi Post, Byndoor, Kundapura Taluk.
…RESPONDENT
(respondent served)
This Criminal Revision Petition is filed under Section 397 and 401 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973, by the State Public Prosecutor for the State praying to set aside the judgment dated 29.09.2012 passed by the Sessions Judge,
2
Udupi in Criminal Appeal No.6/2012 and confirm the order dated 03.01.2012 passed by the Authorised Officer/Deputy Conservation of Forests in F.O.C.No.24/2010-11.
This petition coming on for Orders this day, the court made the following:
O R D E R
Heard the learned State Public Prosecutor.
3
It transpires that on 30.11.2010, teakwood measuring about 11.0610 cubic meter and wood measuring 0.250 cubic meter was being transported in the vehicle bearing registration No.KA-20-A-3797 and a forest offence was registered under Section 25(c), 50 and 62 of the Karnataka Forest Act and the vehicle was produced before the Authorized Officer. The respondent who was a registered owner of the vehicle had appeared before the said officer and he had claimed that he had employed a driver by name Sukumar and the respondent was unaware of the transportation of teak wood and it was done without his knowledge and that he was innocent. The Authorised Officer had rejected the application on the footing that the owner of the vehicle was required to take sufficient precaution to ensure that the vehicle was not used for illegal purposes and therefore, the claim of the application could not be considered. The same having been carried in appeal, the Appellate Court has held that the claim of the respondent was plausible and that it was quite common that a driver employed
4
by the owner of the vehicle could use the vehicle for illegal purposes without his knowledge. In any event, if the vehicle is kept idle for several days without usage, the parts of the vehicle would get rusted and deteriorated and has thought it fit to release the vehicle by imposing stringent conditions. It is this which is sought to be questioned in the present petition.
638. Therefore, there is no merit in this petition.
The petition is rejected.
Sd/- JUDGE
KS
2 issues framed by the court
Whether there was merit in the present criminal revision petition filed by the State to set aside the judgment of the Sessions Judge and confirm the order impeding the release of the vehicle.
Whether the claim of the respondent-owner regarding lack of knowledge of illegal transportation was plausible.
Colour shows how this judgement treated each authority
Sunderbai Ambalal Desai vs. State of GujaratApplied¶27
_Sunderbai Ambalal Desai vs. State of Gujarat AIR 2003 SC 638._ · Who else cites this
3 provisions across 3 enactments
The State
Raju Marati
Anand Byrareddy
As recorded by the court registry
Judgements on the same questions, provisions and authorities, from every court
