Research › Search › Judgment

Karnataka High Court · body

2019 DIGILAW 1750 (KAR)

Ashok v. State of Karnataka

2019-07-19

B.A.PATIL

body2019
JUDGMENT : B.A. Patil, J. This petition has been filed by the petitioner accused No.1 under Section 482 of Cr.P.C. praying this Court to modify the order dated 15.04.2019 passed by the VII Addl. District & Sessions Judge, Belagavi, sitting at Chikodi in Criminal Revision Petition No.191/2019 by relaxing the condition. 2. I have heard the learned counsel for the petitioner and the learned HCGP for the respondent- State. 3. The facts leading to the case are that, the vehicle bearing registration No.AP-23/J-3189 was seized in Crime No.42/2019 for the offences punishable under Sections 279, 338, 304A of IPC and also under Sections 134 & 189 of Motor Vehicles Act. Thereafter an application was came to be filed under Section 457 of Cr.P.C to release the said vehicle in favour of the owner. The learned Magistrate by order dated 30.03.2019 rejected the said application. Being aggrieved by the said order, the petitioner-accused preferred the Criminal Revision Petition No.191/2019 before the VII Addl. Dist. & Sessions Judge, Belagavi, sitting at Chikodi. The learned District Judge by order dated 15.04.2019, allowed the Revision Petition and released the said vehicle for interim custody of the petitioner accused, subject to the condition that he has to execute an indemnity bond for a sum of Rs.2,00,000/- and also renewable bank guarantee for a sum of Rs.4,00,000/- with one surety with the like sum. For having imposed the said condition, the petitioner-accused is before this Court. 4. I have heard the learned counsel for the petitioner and the learned HCGP for the respondent- State. 5. It is the specific contention of the learned counsel for the petitioner that, the order passed by the learned Sessions Judge though it is in accordance with law, but imposition of the condition of renewable bank guarantee is not as contemplated under the law. The said condition is so harsh that it is as good as not releasing the vehicle in favour of the petitioner-accused. It is his further contention that, he is ready to execute reasonable condition and to satisfy the Court whatever the conditions which are going to be imposed in this behalf. On these grounds, he prayed to allow the petition and to release the vehicle in his favour by imposing reasonable conditions. 6. It is his further contention that, he is ready to execute reasonable condition and to satisfy the Court whatever the conditions which are going to be imposed in this behalf. On these grounds, he prayed to allow the petition and to release the vehicle in his favour by imposing reasonable conditions. 6. Per contra, the learned HCGP vehemently argued and submitted that, the Court below by exercising the discretion has allowed the petition and released the vehicle in favour of the petitioner-accused. The said condition is imposed only with a security purpose. On these grounds, she prayed to dismiss the petition. 7. I have carefully and cautiously gone through the submissions of the learned counsel appearing for the parties and perused the records. 8. As could be seen from the order of the learned District Judge dated 15.04.2019, after considering the material placed on record, allowed the revision petition and thereafter while releasing the vehicle imposed the following conditions: "Application filed by the revision petitioner U/Sec. 457 of Cr.P.C. is allowed. The Petitioner/Applicant viz., Ashok Tukaram Kaleli of Koulagudd, Tal: Athani is entitled to the interim custody of the Mahindra Tractor bearing Reg. No.AP-23/J-3189 on executinig the indemnity bond for Rs.2,00,000/- and renewable bank guarantee for Rs.4,00,000/- with one surety for like sum and subject to the following conditions: (i) The applicant shall produce the said vehicle before the Trial Court as and when directed to do so. (ii) He shall not change the colour of the vehicle and he shall not alienate the same, till the disposal of the case before the Trial Court. (iii) The I.O. shall take the photographs of the said vehicle and he shall prepare the panchanama of the said vehicle and produce the before the Trial Court." 9. Though the learned District Judge has imposed the condition to execute the indemnity bond for a sum of Rs.2,00,000/- and surety for the like sum, but however, he has also imposed the condition of renewable bank guarantee for Rs.4,00,000/- with one surety for the like sum. The said condition appears to be bad in law and is very harsh. The orders which have been came to be passed by the Courts below are to be executable and if such a harsh condition is imposed, then the poor agriculturists will not be in a condition to comply the conditions and to get released the vehicles. The said condition appears to be bad in law and is very harsh. The orders which have been came to be passed by the Courts below are to be executable and if such a harsh condition is imposed, then the poor agriculturists will not be in a condition to comply the conditions and to get released the vehicles. Under the MMRD Act, under Rule 43 (8) wherein a specific provision has been made to the effect that, no release of the vehicle shall however not including the minerals so seized shall be made unless there is an execution by the owner, thereafter, the security in the form of renewable bank guarantee of an amount equal to double the value of the such vehicle, before the competent Court to try the offence on account of which seizer has been made. But in the Cr.P.C, no such condition has been stipulated. In the said MMDR Act, confiscation proceedings of the vehicle is there. In that light, the Rule as provided therein is imposed with a view that, if the vehicle is not seized by the confiscation, then at least the said amount of the value of the vehicle is to be indemnified to the Government. In that light, though the rule has been imposed, but that is not the case in other offences in the IPC or the Motor Vehicles Act. In the case of Sunderbhai Ambalal Desai Vs. State of Gujarat, (2003) AIR SC 638, wherein the Hon'ble Apex Court has ruled that under what circumstances and with what conditions the vehicles have to be released for the interim custody. The First Revisional Court without looking into the said aspect has imposed the condition of renewable bank guarantee for a sum of Rs.4,00,000/- with one surety. Hence, the imposition of condition of renewable bank guarantee for a sum of Rs.4,00,000/- with one surety is relaxed and the other conditions have been kept in tact. 10. With the above observations, the petition is allowed and the impugned order dated 15.04.2019 passed in Criminal Revision Petition No.191/2019 by the VII Addl. District & Sessions Judge, Belagavi, sitting at Chikodi is modified by relaxing the said condition as observed above. In terms of the above, the petition is disposed off.