Allowed

Sri.Ninganagouda S/O Kotreppagouda Huded v. the State of Karnataka

Karnataka HC12 Jun 2019CRL.RP/100053/2019

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The High Court of Karnataka allowed a criminal revision petition to set aside an order rejecting the release of a seized tractor trailer. The petitioner was directed to register the vehicle, execute a personal bond, provide a bank guarantee, and file affidavits regarding the vehicle's identity. The jurisdictional court was ordered to release the vehicle on these conditions.

What did the court decide?

Set aside the order rejecting the release of the vehicle; release the seized tractor trailer subject to a personal bond, bank guarantee, and conditions regarding registration and vehicle identity.

Sri.Ninganagouda S/O Kotreppagouda Huded Vs the State of… — Cheque Dishonour | Karnataka HC (2019)

¶1

IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA DHARWAD BENCH

¶2

DATED THIS THE 12^TH DAY OF JUNE 2019

¶3

BEFORE

¶4

THE HON’BLE MR.JUSTICE B.A.PATIL

¶5

CRIMINAL REVISION PETITION NO.100053/2019

¶6

BETWEEN:

¶7

SRI. NINGANAGOUDA S/O. KOTREPPAGOUDA HUDED, AGE 76 YEARS, OCC: BUSINESS AND AGRI, R/O. CHIKKA ULLIGERI, TALUKA: SAVADATTI, DIST. BELAGAVI.

¶8

... PETITIONER

¶9

(By SRI. PRAVEENKUMAR G. KULKARNI, ADVOCATE)

¶10

AND

¶11

THE STATE OF KARNATAKA BY SAVADATTI, RURAL POLICE STATION (SRPS), REPTD. BY STATE PUBLIC PROSECUTOR, HIGH COURT BUILDING, DHARWAD.

¶12

... RESPONDENT

¶13

(By SRI. RAJA RAGHAVENDRA NAIK, HCGP)

¶14

THIS CRIMINAL REVISION PETITION IS FILED UNDER SECTION 397 R/W. 401 OF CR.P.C. SEEKING TO ALLOW THIS CRIMINAL REVISION PETITION BY QUASHING

¶15

: 2 :

¶16

THE ORDER OF IV-ADDL. DIST. & SESSIONS JUDGE & SPECIAL COURT AT BELAGAVI DATED 08.01.2019 REJECTING THE CRL. MISC. NO.3316/2018 APPLICATION FILED BY THE PETITIONER FOR RELEASE OF VEHICLE TRACTOR AND TRAILOR IN BELGAUM RURAL POLICE STATION (SRPS) FILED PRIVATE COMPLAINT NO.243/2018 BEFORE THE II-JMFC COURT, BELAGAVI, FOR THE ALLEGED OFFENCES PUNISHABLE UNDER SECTION 4(1A), 21, 22 OF MMRD ACT R/W. SEC.3, 32, 44 OF KMMC RULES 1974 AND RELEASE THE VEHICLE TRACTOR & TRAILOR OF THE PETITIONER.

¶17

THIS CRIMINAL REVISION PETITION COMING ON FOR ADMISSION THIS DAY, THE COURT MADE THE FOLLOWING:

¶18

ORDER

¶19

The present petition has been filed by the petitioner-applicant under Section 397 of Cr.P.C. praying this Court to set aside the order dated 08.01.2019 passed by the IV Addl. Dist. & Sessions Judge & Special Court at Belagavi in Criminal Misc. No.3316/2018, whereunder application filed for release of the vehicle i.e. Tractor Trailor was came to be rejected.

¶20

: 3 :

¶21

I have heard the learned counsel for the

¶22

petitioner and the learned HCGP for the respondentState.

¶23

The facts leading to the case are that on the basis of credible information, the PSI, Saudatti along with his staff and Punch witnesses went near Chikka Ullageri cross and there they found an un-numbered tractor trailer loaded with sand being transported illegally. After making an enquiry, he came to know that there is no permit or licence. He seized the said tractor trailor and a case has been registered. Thereafter, the present petitioner filed an application under Section 451/457 of Cr.P.C. in Crl. Misc. No.3316/2018 to release the tractor trailor in his favour. The learned Dist. & Sessions Judge has dismissed the said application and against the said order, the present petitioner is before this Court.

¶24

: 4 :

¶25

Learned counsel for the petitioner-applicant

¶26

submits that, the PSI, Saundatti has registered a false case and seized the vehicle. It is his submission that the said vehicle is standing in his name and if the said vehicle is detained in the police station, it would be exposed to the sun and rain and as such its vital parts of engine will get damaged and the purpose for which vehicle is purchased would get frustrated. The proceeding which has been initiated may take long time and if it is kept idle, then the said vehicle will become junk. It is his further submission that, though the said vehicle has not been registered, but he is not disputing its ownership. He further submitted that, he is ready to register the said vehicle in his name by paying the taxes as contemplated under the law. He further submits that he is ready to abide by the conditions imposed by this Court and ready to offer the sureties. On these grounds, he prayed to allow the petition and to release the vehicle in his favour.

¶27

: 5 :

¶28

5. Per contra, the learned HCGP submitted

¶29

that, as per the documents the said tractor trailor has not been permanently registered. Only on temporary registration the said vehicle has been run. If the said vehicle is released, then under such circumstances, again the said vehicle may be used for the purpose of illegal transportation of sand. He further submits that, if the said vehicle is released they may change the parts, character and identity of the vehicle. He further submits that, the said vehicle is very much necessary for the purpose of identification. He further submits that as per the provisions of Section 21(4) of M.M.D.R. Act, the said vehicle is liable to be confiscated to the government. If the said vehicle is seized it becomes the property of the government, then under such circumstances, the said vehicle cannot be released at any stretch of imagination. On these grounds, he prayed to dismiss the petition.

¶30

: 6 :

¶31

I have carefully and cautiously gone through the submissions made by the learned counsels appearing for the parties and perused the records.

¶32

As could be seen from the provisions of the Act, if any vehicle has been seized in contravention of provisions of the said Act, the said vehicle is liable to be confiscated then under such circumstances, it requires that the said provision has to be strictly complied with. But if the said vehicle is kept idle in the police station then under such circumstances, the said vehicle is going to become junk and no value can be attached to the said property. It is well settled proposition of law by the Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of Sunderbhai Ambalal Desai Vs. State of Gujarat, reported in AIR 2003 SC 638 that, Court to pass appropriate orders immediately and articles are not to be kept for a long time at police station in any case for not more than 15 days to one month. It is for the Magistrate to pass appropriate orders immediately by taking appropriate

¶33

: 7 :

¶34

bond and guarantee as well as security for the return of the said vehicle, if it is required subsequently in the said proceedings. As per Rule 43 (8) of Karnataka Minor Mineral Concession rules, 1994 it imposes that no release of the seized vehicle shall be made unless there is an exclusion by the owner security in the form of renewable of the bank guarantee of an amount equal or double of the value of such vehicle before the competent court having jurisdiction to try the offence on account of which seizure has been made. For the purpose of gravity, I quote Rule 43 (5) & (8) of the KMMC Rules, 1994, which reads as under:

¶35

(5) If the driver or person in-charge of the vehicle fails to produce a valid permit, the officer in-charge of the checkpost or barrier may require the driver or the owner or person incharge of the vehicle to pay penalty equal to (fifteen times) the amount of royalty payable as per Schedule-2.

¶36

: 8 :

¶37

(8). Whenever an order of confiscation in respect of minor mineral seized under sub-rule (6) is made, the confiscating officer shall give an option to the owner or driver or person in-charge of the vehicle to pay the amount as required under sub-rule (5) in lieu of such confiscation. In case of failure of the driver, owner or person incharge of the vehicle to exercise such ption, the confiscated material may be disposed of by the officer by auction sale.

¶38

Provided that no such minor mineral confiscated under sub-rule (6), shall be disposed of by the confiscating officer before expiry of three days from the date of such confiscation and, till such time option shall remain with the owner or person in-charge of the vehicle to carry the minor mineral after paying the penalty assessed.”

¶39

The accused-petitioner in order to

¶40

substantiate the fact that he is the owner of the said vehicle and it stands in his name, he has produced Form KMV 19 – Temporary Certificate of Registration. It clearly goes to show that the petitioner-accused is the owner of the said vehicle. But that the said vehicle has

¶41

been purchased on 17.12.2016 the same has not been

¶42

: 9 :

¶43

got registered. Under such circumstances, I feel that if the petitioner-owner is directed to get the vehicle registered and if he is directed to execute renewable Bank guarantee as stated above, then under such circumstances, it is going to meet the ends of justice.

¶44

In the light of the above discussions held by me above, the petition is allowed and the order passed by the IV Addl. Dist. & Sessions Judge & Special Court at Belagavi in Criminal Misc. No.3316/2018 dated 08.01.2019 is hereby set aside and the jurisdictional Court is directed to release the seized vehicle tractor trailor bearing temporary Registration Mark KA25/NT000452/2016-17, Chassis No.923913160585 and Engine No.G82603 in Private Complaint No.243/2018 before the II Addl. JMFC Court, Belagavi for the offences punishable under Sections 4(1A), 21, 22 of MMRD Act r/w. Sec. 3, 32, 44 of KMMC rules, 1974, with the following conditions:

¶45

: 10 :

¶46

i) The petitioner shall execute personal bond for a sum of Rs.8,00,000/- (Rupees Eight lakhs only) with two solvent sureties for the like sum to the satisfaction of the jurisdictional court.

¶47

ii) The petitioner-owner shall execute a renewable bank guarantee for a sum of Rs.8,00,000/- in terms of Rule 43 (5) & (8) of the Karnataka Minor Mineral Concession rules, 1994.

¶48

iii) The petitioner immediately after getting released the vehicle for his interim custody, shall register permanently and after permanent registration the same may be intimated to the concerned police station as well as the jurisdictional Court.

¶49

iv) Before getting the vehicle released in favour of the petitioner, I.O. shall take photographs of the vehicle from all angle and the petitioner has to endorse that he will not dispute the identity of the said vehicle and to that effect he has to file an affidavit before the jurisdictional Court.

¶50

v) The petitioner should file an affidavit that he will produce the vehicle before the jurisdictional court as and when ordered to do so and he will not transfer, change or take away the spares or alter the nature, condition or colour of the

¶51

: 11 :

¶52

vehicle. He must also state if it is not produced he will indemnify an amount of Rs.8,00,000/- (Rupees Eight Lakh) to the Government.

¶53

Sd/JUDGE

¶54

*Svh/-

Sri.Ninganagouda S/O Kotreppagouda Huded v. the State of Karnataka

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Sri.Ninganagouda S/O Kotreppagouda Huded 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

Cases cited

Statutes considered

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Shri.Abhay Kumar S/O Bharmgouda Patil Vs the Superintendent of Police

Mr.Basavaraj Malleshi Dharnatti Vs the State of Karnataka

Sri.Basavaraj S/O Hulugappa Vs the State of Karnataka

Akhil S/O Mugustab Mulla Vs Alfiybanu W/O Akhil Mulla

Dr. Anandbabu S/O G. Narayanaswami, Vs M/S S.C. Naregal

Goudappa S/O Malakari Jatagond Vs State of Karnataka