Allowed

Sri Dinesh @ Dinesh Ganiga v. State of Karnataka

SEIZED VEHICLE – SECURITY – CRPC 482 (INTRA VITAM)

Karnataka HC3 Aug 2021CRL.P/4506/2021

Download

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The High Court allowed a criminal petition challenging a condition requiring a double bank guarantee for releasing a seized vehicle. The Court modified the condition, directing the petitioner to deposit cash security instead of the bank guarantee.

What did the court decide?

Condition No.1 regarding double bank guarantee modified to require deposit of Rs.50,000 as cash security.

Sri Dinesh @ Dinesh Ganiga Vs State… — Constitutional and Fundamental Rights | Karnataka HC (2021)

¶1

¶2

IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU

¶3

DATED THIS THE 03^RD DAY OF AUGUST, 2021

¶4

BEFORE

¶5

THE HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE SREENIVAS HARISH KUMAR

¶6

CRIMINAL PETITION No.4506 OF 2021

¶7

BETWEEN

¶8

Sri Dinesh @ Dinesh Ganiga, Aged about 33 years, S/o Nagesh Ganiga, H.No.1-68m Konki Nada Guddeyangadi Nada Kundapura Taluk, Udupi-576230.

¶9

…Petitioner

¶10

(By Sri B.N.Jagadeesha, Advocate)

¶11

AND

¶12

State of Karnataka, By the Geologist, The Mines and Minerals Department Udupi, Represented by State Public Prosecutor, High Court of Karnataka, Bengaluru - 560001.

¶13

…Respondent

¶14

(By Sri R.D.Renukaradhya, HCGP)

¶15

¶16

This Criminal Petition is filed under Section 482 of Cr.P.C., praying to set aside the condition for furnishing the renewable bank guarantee double the value of the vehicle assessed by the RTO, Udupi passed by the Learned Additional Civil Judge and JMFC, Kundapura by order dated 11.06.2021 in PCR No.138/2021.

¶17

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

¶18

ORDER

¶19

This is a petition under Section 482 of Cr.P.C. The petitioner has sought to set-aside one of the conditions imposed by the JMFC, Kundapura while allowing the petitioner’s application under Section 457 of Cr.P.C.

¶20

Heard the petitioner’s counsel and the learned High Court Government Pleader for the respondent-State.

¶21

The petitioner sought release of his vehicle, namely, mini tipper bearing its registration No.KA-

¶22

¶23

15/9509, seized by the department of Mines and

¶24

Geology while conducting a raid.

¶25

Learned Magistrate, while allowing the said application imposed six conditions, of which condition No.1 is that the ‘ petitioner shall furnish renewable bank guarantee for the amount double the value of vehicle assessed by the RTO, Udupi besides executing a personal bond for Rs.1,00,000/- .’

¶26

Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that by virtue of an amendment brought to Karnataka Mines and Minerals Concession Rules, 2017 (‘Rules’ for short), Sub Rule(8) of Rule 43 was repealed and this amendment was given into effect from 30.06.2020. The raid was conducted on 27.05.2021. Therefore the amended rule is applicable. The Magistrate appears to have imposed the condition to furnish bank guarantee keeping in mind the Sub Rule(8) of Rule 43 which does

¶27

¶28

not exist now and therefore this condition is to be quashed.

¶29

Learned High Court Government Pleader

¶30

submits that he sought clarification from the Law Department of the Government of Karnataka and the clarification given by the Government is that the Rules substituted by amendment with effect from 30.06.2020 do not speak about release of the vehicle.

¶31

It is true that amendment was brought to the Rules and by virtue of the amendment, Sub-Rules(5) to (11) that existed before the amendment were substituted by Sub-Rule (5) to (7). None of the amended rules states that at the time of releasing the vehicle, the owner of the vehicle should be directed to provide bank guarantee. Though these rules are silent, the hands of the Court are not precluded from imposing

¶32

any condition as it thinks fit while disposing the application under Section 451 and 457 of Cr.P.C.

¶33

¶34

Therefore it is to be stated that though it is found that the learned Magistrate has imposed a condition keeping in mind the earlier Sub-Rule(8), it cannot be said that imposing of such a condition is against the law. The Government Pleader might have argued that the amended rules do not provide for release of vehicle, but his argument cannot be accepted. If there is no provision in the Rules, the Court can exercise power under Sections 451 and 457 of Cr.P.C.

¶35

In this view, what I find in the facts and circumstances is that, instead of requiring the petitioner to offer bank guarantee equal to double the value of the vehicle seized, he may be directed to provide cash security. Hence the following:

¶36

ORDER

¶37

The petition is allowed.

¶38

Condition No.1 imposed in the impugned order passed in PCR

¶39

¶40

No.138/2021 by the Additional Civil Judge and JMFC, Kundapura is modified as below:

¶41

“The petitioner is directed deposit a sum of Rs.50,000/- in the Court below as cash security towards release of his vehicle bearing No.KA-15/9509, instead of furnishing bank guarantee equal to double the value of the vehicle assessed by the RTO, Udupi.”

¶42

Sd/JUDGE

¶43

Kmv/-

Sri Dinesh @ Dinesh Ganiga v. State of Karnataka

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Sri Dinesh @ Dinesh Ganiga v. 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

Smt. S. N. Vinoda Vs Naveen Kumar. K

Sri Chidambara Vs the State of Karnataka

Smt. Thamaraiselvi Vs the State of Karnataka

V a Haresha Vs State of Karnataka

Rajini K Vs the State of Karnataka

Bharath Vs the State of Karnataka