Research › Search › Judgment

Karnataka High Court · body

2019 DIGILAW 899 (KAR)

Mallappa S/o Mayappa Idali v. State Of Karnataka

2019-04-15

H.P.SANDESH

body2019
ORDER : Though this matter is listed for admission, with the consent of the counsel for both the sides, it is taken up for final disposal as the matter is being heard on merits. 2. The factual matrix of the case is that the vehicle is seized in connection with the offence under the Karnataka Minor Mineral Concession Rules, 1994 and the application is filed before the VII Addl. District and Sessions Judge, Belagavi, sitting at Chikodi for the release of vehicle in Crl.Misc.No.3355/2018. The District and Sessions Judge by order dated 15.02.2019 allowed the application and imposed certain conditions. The petitioner being the owner of the vehicle, aggrieved by the order of the Court below, insofar as the direction to the petitioner to execute a renewable bank guarantee to the tune of Rs.6,00,000/-which is double the value of the seized vehicle as assessed by the complainant, the petitioner filed the petition before this Court invoking Section 482 of Cr.P.C. praying to modify the impugned order without any bank guarantee. 3. The main ground urged in the petition is that petitioner is the owner of the seized vehicle and the order passed by the Court below is illegal, arbitrary and contrary to the law. The petitioner is unable to furnish renewable bank guarantee to the tune of Rs.6,00,000/-as the direction issued by the District and Sessions Judge is highly improper and perverse and bad in law and hence, prayed this Court to set aside the direction of executing a renewable bank guarantee. 4. Per contra, the learned HCGP for the respondent in his argument contends that Rule 43 of the KMMC Rules are amended and the condition imposed is based on the Rule 43(8) of the KMMC Rules and it is specific that the owner has to furnish the renewable bank guarantee of the amount equal to double the value of such vehicle and which is in accordance with law. Hence, the impugned order cannot be set aside. 5. Having heard the arguments of the petitioner’s counsel and the learned HCGP for the respondent-State and also on perusal of the direction to execute a renewable bank guarantee, this Court has to examine the Rule 43(8) of the KMMC Rules. Hence, the impugned order cannot be set aside. 5. Having heard the arguments of the petitioner’s counsel and the learned HCGP for the respondent-State and also on perusal of the direction to execute a renewable bank guarantee, this Court has to examine the Rule 43(8) of the KMMC Rules. Admittedly, Rule 43(8) of the KMMC Rules where the specific provision is made that no release of the vehicle which shall however not include the minor mineral so seized shall be made unless there is an execution by the owner thereof, of security in the form of a renewable bank guarantee, of an amount equal to double the value of such vehicle, before the Competent Court having jurisdiction to try the offence on account of which the seizure has been made. Provided that where a report has been made to the competent Court under sub-rule (7) the seized vehicle shall not be released except under the order of such Court. 6. Sub-Rules (5), (6), (7) and (8) of Rule 43 of KMMC Rules which are amended in 2017 w.e.f. 18.11.2017 are read as follows: “43. Checkposts and checking of minerals in transit.- (5) The Officer in charge of the check post or the barrier or the Authorised officer shall seize any minor mineral including the vehicle used for transit of such minor mineral, if the driver or person in charge of such vehicle fails to produce a valid permit. (6) The Officer in charge of the check post or the barrier or the Authorised officer after seizing any minor mineral along with the vehicle used for transit of such minor mineral under sub-rule (5) shall give a receipt in Form-VS (Vehicle Seized) for having effected the seizure to the person from whose possession or control it is seized. (7) Upon seizure as provided under sub rule (6) it shall be necessary for the officer referred to concerned officer under sub-rule (6) to make a report within a reasonable period of such seizure to the Competent Court having jurisdiction to try the offence on account of which seizure has been made. (7) Upon seizure as provided under sub rule (6) it shall be necessary for the officer referred to concerned officer under sub-rule (6) to make a report within a reasonable period of such seizure to the Competent Court having jurisdiction to try the offence on account of which seizure has been made. (8) No release of the vehicle which shall however not include the minor mineral so seized shall be made unless there is an execution by the owner thereof, of security in the form of a renewable Bank Guarantee, of an amount equal to double the value of such vehicle, before the Competent Court having jurisdiction to try the offence on account of which the seizure has been made: Provided that where a report has been made to the Competent Court under sub-rule (7) the seized vehicle shall not be released except under the orders of such Court.” 7. For having taken note of the recent amendment of Rule 43(8) of the KMMC Rules, the Court below rightly directed to furnish a renewable bank guarantee which is double the value of the seized vehicle and while considering the provision also, the Court has to keep in mind the very object in bringing the amendment and wisdom of legislature and intent of the legislature has to be kept in mind. The transportation of the sand without the permit which is menace to the society with that object only the rule has been amended and the order passed by the District and Sessions Judge is in consonance with rule which has been amended and the same is in accordance with Rule 43(8) of the KMMC Rules. This Court cannot interpret the law as against the statute and the very purpose of bringing the said amendment is to curb menace in the society and with that object only the amendment is brought in and the very object of the amendment has to be kept in mind while considering the matter. The contention of the petitioner’s counsel that the very order is bad in law cannot be accepted. Hence, I do not find any ground to interfere with the order of the Court below. The order passed by the District and Sessions Judge is in accordance with rule and provision as contended by the respondent’s counsel. The contention of the petitioner’s counsel that the very order is bad in law cannot be accepted. Hence, I do not find any ground to interfere with the order of the Court below. The order passed by the District and Sessions Judge is in accordance with rule and provision as contended by the respondent’s counsel. The Court is having power to interpret the law and not to interpret the law against the statute as against the legislative intent and wisdom of the legislature. The amendment is brought in 2017 in order to stop the illegal movement of minerals and hence, in view of the said Rule 43(8) of the KMMC Rules which has not been struck down and hence, I do not find any reasons to interfere with the impugned order. 8. In view of the above discussions, this Court proceed to pass the following: ORDER The petition is dismissed