Research › Search › Judgment

Karnataka High Court · body

2020 DIGILAW 204 (KAR)

Erappa v. State Of Karnataka

2020-01-23

P.G.M.PATIL

body2020
JUDGMENT 1. The learned High Court Government Pleader takes notice for the respondent. 2. The petition is admitted and taken up for final disposal with the consent of the learned counsel appearing for the parties. 3. This is a petition filed under section 482 of Cr.P.C., seeking to modify and relax the condition No.4 imposed in the order dated 29.11.2019, passed in Crl .Misc.No.772/2019, on the file of District and Sessions Judge, Koppal, by which the petitioner was directed to furnish renewable bank guarantee of thirteen lakh rupees. 4. The brief facts of the case are that, on 9.8.2019, one Rajmahamad, ASI, Bevoor P.S., filed a complaint before the SHO of the said police station. He has stated in his complaint that on that day at about 6.00 a.m. he received information about the illegal transportation of sand within the limits of Koliwad village. Therefore he himself along with his staff and two panchas went to the said place and conducted raid. He found one tractor and trailer loaded with sand for the purpose of transportation without permit or licence. Therefore he seized the said tractor and trailer by drawing panchanama and accordingly filed the said complaint, on the basis of which the respondent police registered the case against unknown person for of fence punishable under section 21(1) and 21(2) of MMDR act and section 379 of IPC and Rule 42, 43 and 44 of KMMC Rules. Subsequently the petitioner filed an application under section 457 of Cr.P.C. before the District and Sessions Court, Koppal, for the release of tractor and trailer for his interim custody. 5. The Sessions Court after hearing the prosecution, al lowed the said application by impugned order imposing conditions No.1 to 8 for the release of the said vehicle to the interim custody of the petitioner. By virtue of condition No.4, the petitioner has been directed to furnish renewable bank guarantee of thirteen lakh rupees. The petitioner has stated that the said condition is not sustainable in law. He is a poor agriculturist and he is unable to comply the said condition and therefore the said condition is liable to be modified and relaxed. 6. Heard the learned counsel for the petitioner and the learned High Court Government Pleader. 7. The petitioner has stated that the said condition is not sustainable in law. He is a poor agriculturist and he is unable to comply the said condition and therefore the said condition is liable to be modified and relaxed. 6. Heard the learned counsel for the petitioner and the learned High Court Government Pleader. 7. As can be seen from the FIR and complaint, the complaint was lodged by none other than the ASI of Bevoor P.S., before the SHO of the said police station on the basis of which the case has been registered for the of fence under the provisions of MMDR Act and also KMMC Rules along with section 379 of IPC. It is settled law that the police officer has no jurisdiction to register and investigate a case into the of fence punishable under the provisions of MMDR Act and KMMC Rules. However they are competent to register a case for the of fence under the provisions of IPC and to investigate into the case. 8. Admittedly in the present case no private complaint was filed for the of fence under the provisions of MMDR Act by the authorized officer and therefore the case registered against the petitioner on the basis of the report of ASI, by the respondent police so far as the offence under the provisions of MMDR Act itself is not legal and the police officer cannot investigate into the said of fence under the provisions of the Act. It is also made out from the record that the complaint was filed after the seizure of the vehicle by drawing panchanama. Therefore, when the vehicle was seized, no proceedings were pending under the provisions of the MMDR Act. Therefore imposing condition to furnish renewable bank guarantee by virtue of Rule 43(8) of KMMC Rules does not arise. 9. Under these circumstances, the impugned condition No.4 imposed by the Sessions court is not sustainable in law and the same is liable to be relaxed. Accordingly this Court proceed to pass the following: ORDER The criminal petition filed under section 482 of Cr.P.C. is allowed. Condition No.4 imposed in the order dated 29.11.2019, passed in Crl. Misc.No.772/2019, on the file of District and Sessions Judge, Koppal, directing the petitioner to furnish renewable bank guarantee for Rs.13,00,000/- is relaxed. Accordingly this Court proceed to pass the following: ORDER The criminal petition filed under section 482 of Cr.P.C. is allowed. Condition No.4 imposed in the order dated 29.11.2019, passed in Crl. Misc.No.772/2019, on the file of District and Sessions Judge, Koppal, directing the petitioner to furnish renewable bank guarantee for Rs.13,00,000/- is relaxed. The petitioner is directed to execute an indemnity bond for a sum of Rs.2,00,000/- with a surety for the like sum to the satisfaction of the concerned Court for the release of the said vehicle to his interim custody. The other conditions imposed are left unaltered.