Allowed

Sri.Shivaji Laxman Dhabale v. the State of Karnataka

Karnataka HC25 Nov 2019CRL.P/102146/2019

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

This High Court quashed the Special Court's order rejecting the petitioner's application for interim custody of a seized truck. The Special Court had denied custody based on expired registration details, but the High Court found tax was paid validly until the date of seizure, entitling the petitioner to the vehicle's release.

What did the court decide?

Petition allowed; impugned order quashed; application for interim custody of vehicle bearing registration No. KA-51/2439 allowed on conditions.

Sri.Shivaji Laxman Dhabale Vs the State of… — Civil Procedure and Limitation | Karnataka HC (2019)

¶1

¶2

IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA DHARWAD BENCH

¶3

DATED THIS THE 25^th DAY OF NOVEMBER 2019

¶4

BEFORE

¶5

THE HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE P.G.M.PATIL

¶6

CRIMINAL PETITION NO.102146/2019

¶7

BETWEEN SRI.SHIVAJI LAXMAN DHABALE AGE: 53 YEARS, OCC: AGRICULTURE, R/O: H.NO.42, ZAD ANKLE, IDALHOND, TQ: KHANAPUR, DIST: BELAGAVI.

¶8

... PETITIONER

¶9

(By SRI. VITTHAL S TELI, ADV.)

¶10

AND

¶11

THE STATE OF KARNATAKA REPRESENTED BY ITS STATE PUBLIC PROSECUTOR, HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA, DHARWAD, THROUGH P.S.I. BELAGAVI RURAL POLICE STATION, BELAGAVI.

¶12

... RESPONDENT

¶13

(By SRI.RAJA RAGHAVENDRA NAIK, HCGP)

¶14

¶15

THIS CRIMINAL PETITION IS FILED U/S 482 OF CR.P.C. SEEKING THAT THE DATED 18.10.2019 IN CRL.MISC.NO.2280/2019 PASSED BY THE IV-ADDL. DIST. & SESSIONS JUDGE & SPECIAL JUDGE, BELAGAVI, INSOFAR AS REJECTING THE PETITIONER PRAYER TO RELEASE THE VEHICLE BEARING NO.KA.51/2439 BE QUASHED AND BE ORDER TO RELEASE THE VEHICLE.

¶16

THIS PETITION COMING ON FOR ORDERS THIS DAY, THE COURT PASSED THE FOLLOWING:

¶17

ORDER

¶18

This petition is filed under Section 482 of Cr.P.C. seeking to quash the order dated 18.10.2019 passed by the IV Additional District and Sessions Judge and Special Judge, Belagavi in Cril.Misc.No.2280/2019, in so far as rejecting the petition filed by the present petitioner for release of his vehicle bearing Registration No.KA-51/2439..

¶19

Brief facts of the case are that the complainant/PSI, Belagavi Rural police station, has registered the case against Nos.1 to 6 for

¶20

¶21

the offences under the provisions of MMDR Act and KMMC Rules. It is also stated that the complainant-police officer seized four vehicles in the case including the vehicle of the petitioner herein i.e. truck bearing registration No.KA/2439. Subsequently, the petitioner herein filed an application under Section 451 read with Section 457 of Cr.P.C. before the Special Court for the release of the said vehicle to the interim custody claiming that he is the registered owner of the said vehicle. It is seen that the owner of other vehicle also filed the application along with the present petitioner before the special Court. The special court after hearing the prosecution rejected the application filed by the petitioner whereas allowed the petition filed by the petitioner No.1 and released his vehicle to his interim custody.

¶22

¶23

Heard the learned counsel for the

¶24

petitioner and the learned HCGP.

¶25

It is not disputed that the vehicle

¶26

bearing registration No.KA51/2439 was seized in the said case by the police officer and the present petitioner filed the application for its interim custody. The special Court rejected the application filed by the present petitioner on the ground that as per the documents registration of the vehicle was valid up to 16.08.2016 and tax was paid up to 31.06.2016 and that the incident had occurred on 26.08.2018. Therefore, he is not the registered owner of the said vehicle as on the date of the incident. Copy of the registration certificate and tax paid receipt of the vehicle are produced. Registration certificate of the said vehicle goes to show that tax in respect of the said vehicle was paid upto

¶27

¶28

31.06.2016. Further there is mention in the RC

¶29

book that registration was valid up to 16.08.2016. It appears the special Court observed the same as the validity of the registration of the vehicle which is not proper. The petitioner herein has produced the original tax paid receipt in respect of the said vehicle for the period from 01.04.2018 to 30.09.2018. Therefore as on the date of seizure of the vehicle, road tax of the vehicle was paid and therefore it was permitted to ply on the road. There is no rival claim in respect of the said vehicle. The registration certificate goes to show that the petitioner herein is the registered owner of the said vehicle.

¶30

Under these circumstances, this Court is of the considered opinion that the Special Court ought not to have been rejected the application

¶31

¶32

filed by the petitioner for the interim custody of the said vehicle. Therefore the impugned order is liable to be quashed and the application filed by the petitioner before the special Court needs to be allowed. Accordingly, this Court proceed to pass the following:

¶33

ORDER

¶34

The petition filed under Section 482 of

¶35

Cr.P.C. is allowed.

¶36

The order dated 18.10.2019 passed by the IV Additional District and Sessions Judge and Special Judge, Belagavi in Criminal Misc.No.2280/2019 so far as dismissing the application filed by the petitioner is quashed. The application filed by the petitioner is allowed. It is ordered to release the vehicle bearing registration No.KA-51/2439 to the interim

¶37

¶38

custody of the petitioner on the following

¶39

conditions:

¶40

The petitioner is directed to furnish

¶41

indemnity bond for a sum of Rs.4,00,000/- with two surety for the like sum to the satisfaction of

¶42

the special Court for release of the vehicle to his interim custody, undertaking to produce the said vehicle whenever directed. The

¶43

complainant-police shall obtain two sets of photographs of the said vehicle taken from all directions and produce the same before the special Court along with the CD, and on the conditions as follows:

¶44

The petitioner shall not transfer or

¶45

dispose of the vehicle during the pendency of the case and that he shall not change the colour or identity of the said vehicle.

¶46

¶47

The petitioner shall produce the said

¶48

vehicle before the investigating officer or the Court whenever directed.

¶49

The concerned RTO shall be intimated to make necessary entries in the RC book of the

¶50

vehicle about its involvement in the said case.

¶51

Sd/JUDGE

¶52

KGK

Sri.Shivaji Laxman Dhabale v. the State of Karnataka

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Sri.Shivaji Laxman Dhabale v. the State of Karnataka

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

What the court decided

A compact analysis

Issues for consideration

Statutes considered

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Sri. Umesh D. Sharma Vs the State of Karnataka

Sadiq @ Tawa S/O Mahammadli Mulla Vs the State of Karnataka

Mohammedaslam @ Moulana Vs the State of Karnataka

Shri.Bhimappa Jotiba Bagayi Vs the State of Karnataka

Manjunath Myadaneri @ Nandyapur Vs State of Karnataka

Niranjan S/O Channaveerayya Hiremath Vs Mallikarjun S/O Niranjan Hiremath