Partly allowed

Sri.Rudragouda S/O Shekaragouda Meti v. the State of Karnataka

Karnataka HC28 Aug 2020CRL.RP/100087/2020

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

High Court allowed revision partly, setting aside trial court order that refused release of seized lorry due to lapsed transport permit. Court held registration certificate proves ownership and directed release of vehicle upon execution of indemnity bond and compliance with conditions.

What did the court decide?

Petitioner directed to execute indemnity bond with sureties; vehicle released on conditioned interim custody; police directed to monitor vehicle.

Sri.Rudragouda S/O Shekaragouda Meti Vs the State of… — Property and Title | Karnataka HC (2020)

¶1

: 1 :

¶2

IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA DHARWAD BENCH

¶3

DATED THIS THE 28^TH DAY OF AUGUST, 2020

¶4

BEFORE

¶5

THE HON’BLE MR.JUSTICE SURAJ GOVINDARAJ

¶6

CRIMINAL R.P. NO.100087/2020.

¶7

Between:

¶8

Shri.Rudragouda s/o.Shekaragouda Meti, Age 26 years, Occ: Owner of Lorry and Agri, R/o.Killed Oni, Kukanoor, Tal:Kukanoor, Dist: Koppal.

¶9

Petitioner

¶10

(By Shri.Anand R.Kolli, Advocate)

¶11

And

¶12

The State of Karnataka, Represented by State Public Prosecutor, High Court of Karnataka, Dharwad. Through PSI, Yelburga Police Station.

¶13

Vishwanath H.V.

¶14

Senior Geologist, Office of Senior Geologist, Dept.of Mines and Geology, Koppal 582114.

¶15

Respondents

¶16

(Miss Seema Shiva Naik, HCGP for R.1,)

¶17

: 2 :

¶18

This criminal revision petition is filed under Section 482 of Cr.P.C. praying to set aside the order dated 30/11/2019 in Crl.Misc.No.744/2019 passed by the Principal District and Sessions Judge, Koppal at Koppal for an offence punishable under section 4(1)(1A) and under section 21(1), 21(2) of MMDR Act 1957 of Karnataka Mineral Consistent Rules there by rejecting the prayer /R.C. Holder of seized Lorry bearing No.KA-19/B-3717 by allowing the present criminal petition.

¶19

This petition coming on for orders, this day, the Court made the following:

¶20

ORDER

¶21

The revision petitioner/accused No.1 is before this court aggrieved by the order dated 30/11/2019 in Criminal Misc.No.744/2019 passed by the Prl.District and Sessions Judge Koppal which has been registered for the offences punishable under sections 21(1) and 21(2) of MMDR Act 1957 of Karnataka Mineral Consistent Rules.

¶22

The trial court by way of the above order rejected the application of the petitioner for release of the seized Lorry bearing No.KA-19/B-3717 which had been involved in the commission of offences of the aforesaid.

¶23

: 3 :

¶24

On perusal of the order of the trial court, indicates that the trial court has rejected the application on the ground that transport permit relating to the said vehicle had lapsed on 31/07/2019 and vehicle has been seized on 22/08/2019. There was no valid registration certificate produced by the petitioner before the trial court. In these circumstances, trial court came to the conclusion that the petitioner is not the owner of the said vehicle.

¶25

Sri.Anand R.Kolli, learned counsel for the petitioner would submits that the finding of the trial court is completely wrong, in that ownership of the vehicle cannot be determined on the basis of the transport permit, but has to be looked into on the basis of valid registration certificate..

¶26

Miss.Seema Shiva Naik, learned HCGP appearing for the respondent would contend that vehicle had been involved in the offence and had been seized.

¶27

: 4 :

¶28

Said vehicle had been kept in custody of the authorities, since the same is required to be used for the purpose of evidence.

¶29

Heard Sri.Anand Kolli, learned counsel for the petitioner and Miss.Seema Shiva Naik, HCGP, learned counsel appearing for the respondent state. Perused the papers.

¶30

A perusal of the order of the trial court would indicate reference made of ownership is with regard to transport permit, which had lapsed on 31/07/2019. Said transport permit would not confer title of the vehicle in favour of the petitioner. The copy of the registration certificate was available before the trial court which is also produced before this court. On perusal of the same, it indicates that vehicle/lorry bearing No.KA19/B-3717 is owned by Rudragouda and registration is valid upto 3/6/2020. Hence I am of the considered view that the permit is nothing to

¶31

: 5 :

¶32

do with the ownership of the vehicle. Permit only confer right on the owner to make use of the vehicle for particular purpose. In the above background, the finding of the trial court being improper, is set aside. The ownership of the vehicle has been established in favour of the petitioner and is therefore considered to be the owner of the vehicle.

¶33

The contention of the learned HCGP is that vehicle is required to be kept in custody for the purpose of production during course of evidence, in that accused is the owner of the vehicle, Vehicle cannot be treated as an accused. Mahazar and all other requirements to ascertain the use of the vehicle has been completed. It is not necessary for retention the vehicle in the custody of the authorities and as such, I am of the considered view that the vehicle ought to be released in

¶34

: 6 :

¶35

favour of the petitioner by imposing stringent

¶36

conditions. Hence, I pass the following

¶37

ORDER

¶38

(i) The criminal revision petition is allowed in part;

¶39

(ii) The petitioner is directed to execute an indemnity bond for a sum of Rs.10,00,000/- with two sureties for the likesum to the satisfaction of the trial Court.

¶40

(iii) The petitioner shall produce the vehicle as and when required by the Investigating Officer.

¶41

(iv) The petitioner shall produce the vehicle in court complex if so required.

¶42

(v) The petitioner shall not sell the vehicle during the pendency of the proceedings.

¶43

: 7 :

¶44

(vi) On compliance of all conditions including the relaxed conditions herein the vehicle shall be released to the interim custody of the petitioner.

¶45

(vii) The petitioner to see to it that the above vehicle is not used for commission of similar offences as alleged hence.

¶46

(viii) The Police are directed to enter the registration number, chassis number and other identifying parameters relating to the above vehicle as contained in the

¶47

registration certificate of the vehicle in a separate Register to be maintained by the Police.

¶48

(ix) The above data shall be available to all the Police Stations across the State in order to verify if the above vehicle is again used for committal of similar offences.

¶49

: 8 :

¶50

In the event of any of the above conditions and also being violated, the above order will stand automatically revoked and the Police would be free to seize the vehicle.

¶51

In terms of the above direction, the above petition is disposed of.

¶52

SD/-

¶53

JUDGE pkk

Sri.Rudragouda S/O Shekaragouda Meti v. the State of Karnataka

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Sri.Rudragouda S/O Shekaragouda Meti 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.T.M. Sanna Kotraiah S/O Shivamurthaiah Vs the State of Karnataka

Smt.Paravva W/O Venkatesh Kuduva Vs State of Karnataka

Krishna S/O Devappa Naik Vs the State of Karnataka

Sacred Heart Education Institution Vs the Deputy Director of

Shekayya Gangayya Hiremath Vs Under Secretary

Sajid @ Mohammed Sajid Vs the State of Karnataka