Allowed

Shri Jayendrasinh Natubha Chudasama v. the State of Karnataka

Karnataka HC10 Aug 2023CRL.P/100473/2023

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The Karnataka High Court allowed a criminal petition filed under Section 482 Cr.P.C. to quash an order rejecting the release of a seized truck. Relying on a coordinate bench judgment, the Court released the vehicle to the petitioner's interim custody subject to specific conditions.

What did the court decide?

The impugned order dated 07.11.2022 was quashed, and the application under Section 457 Cr.P.C. was allowed; the truck was released to the petitioner's interim custody subject to conditions.

Shri Jayendrasinh Natubha Chudasama Vs the State of… — Cheque Dishonour | Karnataka HC (2023)

¶1

¶2

NC: 2023:KHC-D:8804 CRL.P No. 100473 of 2023

¶3

IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA, DHARWAD BENCH

¶4

DATED THIS THE 10^TH DAY OF AUGUST 2023

¶5

BEFORE

¶6

THE HON'BLE MR JUSTICE M.NAGAPRASANNA

¶7

CRIMINAL PETITION NO. 100473 OF 2023

¶8

BETWEEN:

¶9

SHRI. JAYENDRASINH NATUBHA CHUDASAMA S/O. NATUBHA CHUDASAMA, AGE. 40 YEARS, OCC. OWNER OF TRUCK GJ10TT8900, R/O. GULABNAGAR, JAMNAGAR, STATE. GUJARAT, PIN-361001, THROUGH GENERAL POWER OF ATTORNEY HOLDER AMAD KASAM SAMA S/O. KASAM RANA SAMA, AGE. 37 YEARS, OCC. GENERAL POWER OF ATTORNEY HOLDER, R/O. LAKWAD NAKA, SANAM, SOC, JAMNAGAR, STATE. GUJARAT, PIN-361001.

¶10

… PETITIONER

¶11

(BY SRI. D.V. PATTAR, ADVOCATE)

¶12

VISHAL NINGAPPA PATTIHAL

¶13

Digitally signed by VISHAL NINGAPPA PATTIHAL

¶14

Date: 2023.08.18 13:31:43 +0530

¶15

AND:

¶16

THE STATE OF KARNATAKA, R/BY STATE PUBLIC PROSECUTOR, HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA, DHARWAD BENCH, (THROUGH KUSHTAGI POLICE STATION KOPPAL PIN-583227)

¶17

THE DEPUTY COMMISSIONER, FOOD & CIVIL SUPPLY & CONSUMER READRESSEL FORUM DEPARTMENT, KOPPAL, DIST. KOPPAL-583227.

¶18

… RESPONDENTS

¶19

(BY SRI. V.S. KALASURMATH, HCGP)

¶20

THIS CRIMINAL PETITION IS FILED U/SEC. 482 OF CR.P.C. SEEKING TO SET ASIDE THE IMPUGNED ORDER BEARING NO. SANKYE.ANASA.ECA/07.2022-23 DATED 07.11.2022 PASSED BY THE

¶21

¶22

NC: 2023:KHC-D:8804 CRL.P No. 100473 of 2023

¶23

RESPONDENT NO. 2 THEREBY REJECTING THE GRANTING OF VEHICLE RELEASE INVOLVED IN CRIME NO. 134/2022 FOR THE OFFENCE PUNISHABLE U/S 3 AND 7 OF ESSENTIAL COMMODITY ACT 1955 THE SAME HAS BEEN REGISTERED BY THE RESPONDENT NO. 1 AUTHORITY VIDE ANNEXURE-D.

¶24

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

¶25

ORDER

¶26

The petitioner is before this Court seeking to set

¶27

aside the impugned order dated 07.11.2022 passed by the 2^nd respondent rejecting the application for release of vehicle involved in Crime No.134/2022 of Kushtagi Police Station, Koppal.

¶28

The learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the issue in the lis stands answered by the order passed by the Co-ordinate bench in Criminal Petition No.100287/2022 wherein identical relief which was declined by the Deputy Commissioner by rejecting the application under Section 457 of Cr.P.C. had been allowed. The Coordinate bench has held as follows:

¶29

2. The Food Inspector on receipt of credible information that the petitioner was transporting rice in the lorry bearing registration No.RJ-50/GA-1118 meant for

¶30

¶31

NC: 2023:KHC-D:8804 CRL.P No. 100473 of 2023

¶32

distribution under PDS Scheme, stopped the said lorry and upon inspection of the vehicle, it was found that the petitioner was transporting 680 rice bags weighing 50 kg each, which was meant for distribution under PDS scheme. The said rice was valued at Rs.8,00,200/-. Thereafter, he seized the vehicle and rice bags, which were being transported by the petitioner unauthorisedly. Thereafter the FIR was registered against the petitioner for the offence punishable under section 3 and 7 of the Essential Commodities Act. The petitioner filed an application with respondent No.2 seeking release of the lorry which was seized by respondent No.1. Respondent No.2 by order dated 10.01.2022 rejected the application stating that it would be appropriate, if the lorry belonging to the petitioner is kept in the custody of police. Taking exception to the same, this petition is filed.

¶33

3. I have considered the submissions made by the learned counsel for the parties.

¶34

The lorry was seized by respondent No.1 with rice meant for distribution under PDS scheme was being transported unauthorisedly. The petitioner, who is the driver of the lorry and also GPA holder of the owner of the lorry, filed an application seeking release of the lorry to his interim custody by imposing suitable terms and conditions. However, respondent No.2 rejected the said application without assigning any cogent reasons. If the lorry is not released, the rights of the owner of the lorry will be adversely affected and the interest of respondent No.1 can be protected by imposing certain terms and conditions o n the lorry owner.

¶35

¶36

NC: 2023:KHC-D:8804 CRL.P No. 100473 of 2023

¶37

In the light of the issue being answered, the petitioner is entitled to the same relief that is granted to the petitioner in the aforesaid case.

¶38

For the aforesaid reasons, the following

¶39

ORDER

¶40

The criminal petition is allowed. The order dated 07.11.2022 passed by respondent No.2-Deputy Commissioner, Koppal, at Annexure-D is hereby quashed and the application filed under section 457 of Cr.P.C., by the petitioner i.e. the GPA holder of the lorry owner is hereby allowed.

¶41

In the result, the truck bearing registration No.GJ.10.TT8900 is ordered to be released to the interim custody of the petitioner subject to following conditions: i) Petitioner has to execute indemnity bond for an amount of Rs.7,00,000/- (Rupees seven lakh only) i.e., the value estimated under the PF so also furnish one surety for the said amount to the satisfaction of the concerned Magistrate Court.

¶42

ii) Petitioner herein should not change the colour and

¶43

¶44

NC: 2023:KHC-D:8804 CRL.P No. 100473 of 2023

¶45

number of the said vehicle.

¶46

iii) Colour photographs of the said vehicle is ordered to be taken from different angles and they should be produced before the concerned JMFC Court.

¶47

iv) The petitioner shall not transfer the vehicle in any manner in favour of anybody till conclusion of the proceedings.

¶48

v) The petitioner shall produce the vehicle before the JMFC Court as and when directed.

¶49

Sd/JUDGE

¶50

kmv Ct:Bck

Shri Jayendrasinh Natubha Chudasama v. the State of Karnataka

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Shri Jayendrasinh Natubha Chudasama 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

Babu S/O Shankarappa Mukkannvar Vs the Union of India by Its Secretary

A Yallappa Vs the General Manager

Smt Uma Aravatagi W/O Prabhu Aravatagi Vs the State of Karnataka

Mrs.Bi Bi Rehana W/O Mr.Syed Liaqat Ali Shah Vs the State of Karnataka

Sri. Daultrao S/O Narasimharao Ghorpade Vs the State of Karnataka

Shankaragouda S/O Linganagouda Vs the State of Karnataka