Allowed

Sri Shinee K K v. the State of Karnataka

Karnataka HC11 Aug 2021WP/14539/2021

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

In a writ petition, the court quashed a condition requiring the petitioner to execute a Bank Guarantee of Rs. 2.00 lakh. The court modified the relief order, directing the petitioner to execute an enhanced Indemnity Bond of Rs. 10.00 lakh with a surety instead.

What did the court decide?

Order dated 20-7-2021 imposing Bank Guarantee condition is deleted; petitioner directed to execute Indemnity Bond for Rs. 10.00 lakh.

Sri Shinee K K Vs the State of Karnataka — Property and Title | Karnataka HC (2021)

¶1

¶2

IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU

¶3

DATED THIS THE 11^TH DAY OF AUGUST, 2021

¶4

BEFORE

¶5

THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE K. NATARAJAN

¶6

WRIT PETITION NO.14539 OF 2021 (GM-RES)

¶7

BETWEEN:

¶8

SRI SHINEE K.K. S/O. RADHA, AGED ABOUT 41 YEARS, KALLUPAURKEEL HOUSE, VALLAMANE AMSON, IRITTY TALUK, KERALA STATE. REPRESENTED BY SPECIAL POWER OF ATTORNEY HOLDER SRI P.V. RAJILESH, A/O. ANANDAN, AGED ABOUT 41 YEARS, RESIDENT OF RAMYA NIVAS, THILLANKERY, AMSOM DESOM, LRITTY TALUK, KERALA STATE.

¶9

... PETITIONER

¶10

(BY SRI R.K. MAHADEVA, ADV.)

¶11

AND:

¶12

THE STATE OF KARNATAKA BY DEPUTY RANGE FOREST OFFICER, FOREST CHECK POST, (MAKUTTA RANGE), AMMATTI BRANCH, VIRAJPET RANGE, VIRAJPET DIVISION, KODAGU DISTRICT – 571 201.

¶13

AUTHORIZED OFFICER AND DEPUTY CONSERVATOR OF FORESTS, VIRAJPET DIVISION, VIRAJPET, KODAGU DISTRICT – 571 201.

¶14

... RESPONDENTS

¶15

(BY SRI B.J. ROHITH, H.C.G.P.)

¶16

¶17

THIS WRIT PETITION IS FILED UNDER ARTICLES 226 & 227 OF THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA READ WITH SECTION 482 OF CR.P.C. PRAYING TO ALLOW THE PETITION AND QUASH/SET ASIDE THE PORTION OF THE ORDER/CONDITION NO.1 i.e. THE APPELLANT SHALL EXECUTE BANK GUARANTEE FOR RS.2,00,000/- IN CRIMINAL APPEAL NO.5006 OF 2021 VIDE ORDER DATED 20-7-2021 VIDE ANNEXURE-A AND TO DIRECT RESPONDENT NO.2 TO RELEASE THE EICHER MINI LORRY, BEARING REGISTRATION NO.KL-47-D-1157, IN FAVOUR OF THE PETITIONER.

¶18

THIS WRIT PETITION IS COMING ON FOR PRELIMINARY HEARING, THIS DAY, THE COURT MADE THE FOLLOWING:

¶19

O R D E R

¶20

Learned High Court Government Pleader accepts notice for respondent Nos.1 and 2.

¶21

This petition is filed by the G.P.A. holder of R.C.

¶22

owner of the vehicle for quashing of condition No.1 directing to furnish Bank Guarantee for a sum of Rs.2.00 lakh for the purpose of release of Eicher Mini Lorry passed by the II Additional District and Sessions Judge, KodaguMadikeri, Sitting at Virajpet, in Criminal Appeal No.5006 of 2021 by order dated 20-7-2021.

¶23

Heard the learned counsel for the petitioner and

¶24

the learned High Court Government Pleader for the respondent-State.

¶25

¶26

The case of the prosecution is that, respondent No.1 seized Eicher Mini Lorry, bearing Registration No. KL-47 D-1157, for transporting the rosewood logs in FOC No.13/2019-20 for the offences punishable under Sections 80, 71A, 104A and 62 of the Karnataka Forest Act, 1963, and Sections 127A, and 144 read with Section 165 of the Karnataka Forest Rules, 1969. The petitioner through his G.P.A. holder filed application before respondent No.2-Deputy Conservator of Forests for releasing the lorry, which came to rejected on 21-12-2020 and the same was challenged before the II Additional District and Sessions Judge, Kodagu-Madikeri, Sitting at Virajpet, by filing Criminal Appeal No.5006 of 2021, which came to be allowed on 20-7-2021 by imposing conditions and the same reads as under:

¶27

“The Eicher Mini Lorry bearing Reg.No. KL-47/D-1157 is ordered to be released to the interim custody of the Appellant on his executing Indemnity Bond for Rs.5,00,000/with one surety for the likesum on the following conditions:

¶28

¶29

Rs.2,00,000/- (Two Lakhs).

¶30

2) xxx.”

¶31

Learned counsel for the petitioner has contended that the petitioner is ready to execute the Indemnity Bond for Rs.5.00 lakh with a surety, but imposing a condition to execute Bank Guarantee for Rs.2.00 lakh is harsh and it is nothing but double condition imposed by the Sessions Judge. In similar case, a Co-ordinate Bench of this Court in Criminal Petition No.11867 of 2020 (GM-RES) decided on 22-10-2020 has deleted the condition to execute the Bank Guarantee. Hence, he prayed for allowing the petition.

¶32

Per contra , the learned High Court Government Pleader has objected the same.

¶33

¶34

Upon hearing the arguments and perusal of the record, the Sessions Judge has released the lorry to the interim custody of the G.P.A. holder of the petitioner on his executing Indemnity Bond for Rs.5.00 lakh with one surety. The Sessions Judge further imposed a condition that the petitioner shall execute Bank Guarantee for Rs.2.00 lakh which is permissible under Section 71(D) of the Karnataka Forest Act. Co-ordinate Bench of this Court as well this Court in similar cases have modified the condition of Bank Guarantee imposed by the Trial Court. In that regard, condition to execute the Bank Guarantee requires to be deleted. Further, the learned counsel for the petitioner is not able to submit the actual cost of the lorry in question. Therefore, I am of the view that Indemnity Bonk executed by the petitioner shall be enhanced.

¶35

Accordingly, the petition is allowed . The order dated 20-7-2021 passed by the II Additional District and Sessions Judge, Kodagu-Madikeri, Sitting at Virajpet, in

¶36

¶37

Criminal Appeal No.5006 of 2021 with regard to condition No.1, i.e. to execute Bank Guarantee for Rs.2.00 lakh is deleted and order of executing Indemnity Bond is modified. The petitioner shall execute Indemnity Bond for Rs.10.00 lakh with a surety for the likesum to the satisfaction of respondent No.2-Authorised Officer and Deputy Conservator of Forests. The rest of the conditions imposed by the First Appellate Court are confirmed.

¶38

Sd/JUDGE

¶39

kvk

Sri Shinee K K v. the State of Karnataka

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Sri Shinee K K 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

Nikhil Bajaj Vs the State of Karnataka

Sri Basavaraju Vs State of Karnataka

Sri. Subramani Vs the State of Karnataka

Smt. Karpagam @ R Ephsiba Vs State of Karnataka

Sri Lion V.G. Shetty (Venudhara G Shetty) Vs the State of Karnataka

Umashankar N Vs Smt. Ambika H K