Dismissed

State of Karnataka by v. Mohammed Thousif

Karnataka HC28 Jul 2021CRL.P/1753/2021

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The Karnataka High Court dismissed the State's criminal petition seeking to quash the order of lower courts allowing release of a vehicle used in illegal sand transportation. The petitioner argued the condition of personal bond violated Rule 43(8) of KMMC Rules, which mandates a bank guarantee.

What did the court decide?

Criminal Petition under Section 482 Cr.P.C. is dismissed; order of lower courts allowing release of vehicle with personal bond is upheld.

State of Karnataka by Vs Mohammed Thousif — Money Laundering | Karnataka HC (2021)

¶1

¶2

IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU

¶3

DATED THIS THE 28^th DAY OF JULY, 2021

¶4

BEFORE

¶5

THE HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE K.NATARAJAN

¶6

CRIMINAL PETITION No.1753 of 2021

¶7

BETWEEN

¶8

State of Karnataka by Geologist Udupi District State Public Prosecutor High Court Building Bengaluru-01

¶9

…Petitioner (BY Sri Mahesh Shetty, HCGP)

¶10

AND

¶11

Mohammed Thousif Aged 23 years S/o Mohammed Rafeeq Residing at No.5-58 Bhavantibettu House Malali Badgulipadi Gunjimutt Mangaluru-575 001

¶12

…Respondent

¶13

(respondent served & unrepresented)

¶14

This Criminal Petition is filed under Section 482 of Cr.P.C. of the Code of Criminal Procedure, praying to set aside the order dated 28.11.2018 passed by the Principal Civil Judge and JMFC, Karkala in P.C. No.328/2018 and also Crl.R.P.No.18/2019 dated 12.04.2019 passed by the Principal District and Sessions Judge at Udupi.

¶15

¶16

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

¶17

ORDER

¶18

This petition is filed by the State under Section 482 of Cr.P.C. for quashing the order passed by the Principal Civil Judge and JMFC, Karkala in P.C.No.328/2018 on the application filed under Sections 451 and 457 of Cr.P.C. by releasing the vehicle in favour of the respondent by imposing the condition to execute a bond with two solvent sureties, but not with bank guarantee as per Section 43(8) of the Karnataka Minor Mineral Concession Rules, 2017 (for short ‘KMMC Rules’).

¶19

Heard learned High Court Government Pleader appearing for the petitioner-State.

¶20

Respondent though served, remained unrepresented.

¶21

The case of the prosecution is that the Department of

¶22

Mines and Geology said to have apprehended the vehicle of the respondent while transporting the sand illegally. The same was seized on 06.11.2018 by the Department of Mines

¶23

¶24

and Geology and subsequently, the complaint came to be filed by the Magistrate under Section 200 of Cr.P.C. During the pendency of the case, the RC owner filed an application under Sections 451 and 457 of Cr.P.C. for release of the vehicle. The same was allowed by the Magistrate by imposing a condition that the RC owner shall execute a personal bond for Rs.7,39,053/- with two solvent sureties, which was challenged by the State before the Sessions Judge by way of Crl.R.P.No.18/2019, which also came to be dismissed on 12.04.2019. Hence, the State is before this Court.

¶25

Learned High Court Government Pleader seriously contended that though the Trial Court rightly ordered to release the vehicle, but the condition imposed is not in accordance with KMMC Rules. Section 43(8) of the KMCC Rules provides for executing renewable bank guarantee equivalent to double the value of the vehicle. Therefore, the order directing the RC owner to execute only the

¶26

¶27

personal bond for Rs.7,39,053/- with two sureties is not correct. Hence, prayed for setting aside of the said order.

¶28

Perused the impugned order. Rule 43(8) of the KMMC Rules refers to executing bank guarantee equivalent to double the value of the vehicle before the competent court having jurisdiction to try the offence, on account of which the seizure has been made, the authority shall not release the vehicle except as per the order of such court. Though Rule 43(8) of the KMMC Rules, 2017 imposes the condition for executing a bank guarantee double the value of the vehicle, but this Court in Crl.R.P.No.310/2019 dated 12.03.2019 (K.L.Ramesh vs. A.S.Dayananda and another) modified the order of the Special Court and ordered to execute indemnity bond instead of bank guarantee and learned counsel for the petitioner therein relied upon the judgment of a co-ordinate Bench of this Court in Crl.P.No.490/2019 dated 06.02.2019 (Fayaz vs. Sub-Inspector of Police and another) . Looking to the facts of this case, the value of the vehicle is Rs.7,39,053/-. The Trial Court as well as the revisional court

¶29

¶30

has considered all these aspects and the revisional has relied upon various judgments of this Court in the case of Sri Akilesh K.C. vs. The State of Karnataka and another; Sri Shambulinga vs. The State of Karnataka; The State of Karnataka vs. Mohammed Sheriff; Sri K.V.Mohammed vs. State; Shivaraju vs. The State and also the judgment of the Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of Sunderbhai Ambalal Desai vs. State of Gujarath reported in (2002)10 SCC 283 while upholding the order of the Trial Court.

¶31

In view of the aforesaid, I am of the view that there is no sufficient ground made out to set aside the order passed by the Trial Court and upheld by the revisional Court. Hence, the Criminal Petition is dismissed.

¶32

Sd/JUDGE

¶33

State of Karnataka by v. Mohammed Thousif

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

State of Karnataka by v. Mohammed Thousif

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

Benoth Venkatanna Vs the State

Mrs. Sujatha Vs Mr. H.M. Umesh

Sri. Shankare Gowda M. S. Vs Dr. Manjunatha B.V.

Sri. Nanjundaiah Vs Union of India

Sri G Manjunath Vs the State of Karnataka

Rijesh Ravindran Vs Union of India