Allowed

Shiddhalingappa S/O Basan Gouda v. State of Karnataka

Karnataka HC12 Oct 2023WP/100540/2023

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

Petitioners sought release of goods and vehicles confiscated by Deputy Commissioner. Court observed earlier directions for inquiry into auction purchase. Upheld release of vehicle subject to indemnity bond, non-alienation, and prohibition of illegal use.

What did the court decide?

Release of seized vehicle to RC owner subject to execution of personal bond, conditions on identity, alienation, and illegal use prohibition.

Shiddhalingappa S/O Basan Gouda Vs State of… — Civil Procedure and Limitation | Karnataka HC (2023)

¶1

¶2

NC: 2023:KHC-D:12336 WP No. 100540 of 2023

¶3

IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA, DHARWAD BENCH

¶4

DATED THIS THE 12^TH DAY OF OCTOBER 2023

¶5

BEFORE

¶6

THE HON'BLE MR JUSTICE M.NAGAPRASANNA

¶7

WRIT PETITION NO. 100540 OF 2023 (GM-RES)

¶8

BETWEEN:

¶9

SIDDHALINGAPPA S/O BASAN GOUDA, AGE. 37 YEARS, OCC. PARTNER OF SRI. BASAVESHWAR RICE MILLS & INDUSTRIES, R/O. NO.1 SINDHNOOR ROAD, APMC YARD, 5^TH GATE, MAANVI, TQ. MAANVI,

¶10

DIST. RAICHUR-584123.

¶11

HALDAL VEERABHADRAPPA, AGE. 45 years, OCC. BUSINESS, R/O. APMC YARD, 1^ST GATE, MANAVI, TQ. MANVI, DIST. RAICHUR-584123.

¶12

… PETITIONERS

¶13

(BY SRI. M.L. VANTI, ADVOCATE)

¶14

AND:

¶15

VISHAL NINGAPPA PATTIHAL

¶16

Digitally signed by VISHAL NINGAPPA PATTIHAL Date: 2023.10.16 13:51:15 +0530

¶17

STATE OF KARNATAKA, BY PSI SIRUGUPPA POLICE STATION, R/BY STATE PUBLIC PROSECUTOR, HIGH COURT OF KARNARTAKA, DHARWAD BENCH, DHARWAD-580001.

¶18

DEPUTY COMMISIONER, FOOD AND CIVIL SUPPLIES, BALLARI-583101.

¶19

DEPUTY COMMISSIONER, FOOD AND CIVIL SUPPLIES, RAICHUR-584101.

¶20

… RESPONDENTS

¶21

(BY SRI. V.S. KALASURMATH, HCGP FOR R1-R3)

¶22

THIS WRIT PETITION IS FILED UNDER ARTICELS 226 AND 227 OF THE CONSTITION OF INDIA, PRAYING TO ISSUE A WRIT IN THE

¶23

¶24

NC: 2023:KHC-D:12336 WP No. 100540 of 2023

¶25

NATURE OF CERTIORARI OR ANY OTHER APPROPRIATE WRIT, ORDER OR DIRECTION TO QUASH THE ORDER DATED 29/12/2022 BEARING NO.KFCS-4/EC-64/ 2022-23 PASSED BY 2^ND RESPONDENT PRODUCED AT ANNEXURE-J IN SO FOR AS PETITIONERS CONCERNCED AND ETC.

¶26

THIS PETITION, COMING ON FOR PRELIMINARY HEARING IN ‘B’ GROUP, THIS DAY, THE COURT MADE THE FOLLOWING:

¶27

ORDER

¶28

The petitioner is before this Court seeking release

¶29

of the goods that were confiscated at the time of search.

¶30

The petitioner was before this Court in Writ Petition No.105380/2022 where this Court has passed the following order:

¶31

“ 6. The Deputy Commissioner shall take into consideration the fact that the petitioner is stating that he had purchased the rice in a public auction conducted by him and if it is found that the petitioner had indeed purchased the Rice bags in a auction conducted by the Deputy Commissioner, the Deputy Commissioner shall take immediate steps to the order of the release of the Rice and the Vehicles in favour of the petitioner.

¶32

7. The Deputy Commissioner shall also take into consideration the report of the Food Inspector dated 07.10.2022, addressed the police in which it is contended that the Food Inspector has stated that the petitioner was not guilty of any wrong doing.

¶33

3 - NC: 2023:KHC-D:12336 WP No. 100540 of 2023

¶34

8. The writ petition is accordingly disposed off directing the Deputy Commissioner to take a decision on the request of the petitioner within a period of seven days from the date of receipt of a copy of this order.”

¶35

On claiming to be in consideration of the direction

¶36

issued by this Court, the Deputy Commissioner passed the following order qua the petitioner.

¶37

(C) 1. In this background the invoice and e-way bills produced by the R-9 were sent to the S.G.S.T. authorities, Ballari for opinion. The letter from J.C.C.T., Ballari Enforcement dt:20-12-2022 stated that the e-way bill data provided by the R-9 does not tally with the e-way bill data available with the department. It is further reported that for 2 e-way bills i.e., Bill bearing No.151487755932 and No. 171518477125 no records were found and in respect of other 2 e-way bills i.e, Bill No. 151487755931 and No.171518477124 data mismatch.

¶38

Incongruity galore in what the Deputy Commissioner has noticed as the aforesaid clause. Therefore, the vehicle which was used for alleged transportation of alleged rice that has become the subject matter of the crime, shall be released in favour of the petitioner on conditions.

¶39

¶40

NC: 2023:KHC-D:12336 WP No. 100540 of 2023

¶41

For the aforesaid reasons, the following order:

¶42

(i) The petition is allowed.

¶43

(ii) The order dated 29.12.2022 passed by the 2^nd respondent bearing No.KFCS4/EC-64/2022-23 be released in favour of the RC owner, subject to following conditions:

¶44

a) Petitioner/accused shall execute a personal bond for a sum of Rs.4,00,000/-(Rupees Four Lakhs Only) with two sureties for the likesum to the satisfaction of the trial Court.

¶45

b) He shall not change the identity of the said vehicle.

¶46

c) He shall not alienate or create any charge over the said vehicle.

¶47

The 2^nd respondent is directed to take photographs of the said vehicle and the same may be kept in the file for the purpose of identification and the petitioner is also directed to file an affidavit to the effect that he will not dispute the identity of the said vehicle.

¶48

The petitioner/accused is strictly warned that he should not use the said vehicle for the commission of any of the offences or he should

¶49

NC: 2023:KHC-D:12336 WP No. 100540 of 2023

¶50

¶51

not use the vehicle for illegal purpose. If the vehicle is used for any illegal purpose, the bond executed by the petitioner/accused shall be forfeited to the Government. In that regard, an indemnity bond may be taken by the 2^nd respondent.

¶52

Sd/JUDGE

¶53

kmv ct:bck List No.: 1 Sl No.: 13

Shiddhalingappa S/O Basan Gouda v. State of Karnataka

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Shiddhalingappa S/O Basan Gouda 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

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Mr.Rohit Aggarwal Vs State of Karnataka by

Mujammil Alias Mujimil Avati S/O Rafiq Avati Vs State of Karnataka

Sri Hajilal S/O Hajianwarsab Pailwan Vs the State of Karnataka

Manjunatha v S/O Late Nagaraj. v. Vs Smt. B. Paravathi W/O. Manjunatha v.

Satish Munara S/O. Kailash Munara Vs State of Karnataka

Basavva Alias Basamma D/O Basalingayya, Vs the State of Karnataka