Research › Search › Judgment

Karnataka High Court · body

2020 DIGILAW 284 (KAR)

Srinivas K. v. Viresh S/o . Tirakappa Guttal

2020-01-30

PRADEEP SINGH YERUR

body2020
ORDER : 1. Though the petition is listed for admission, the same is taken for final disposal. 2. Heard the learned High Court Government Pleader. 3. This petition is filed by the petitioner-State aggrieved by the order dated 14.12.2019 passed by the Principal District Judge and Sessions Judge and Special Judge, Haveri in Spl .SC(MMRD) No.133/2018 , wherein the learned Special Judge allowed the application filed by the respondent under Section 457 of Cr.P.C. and ordered for release of the vehicle bearing No .KA-26/5185 to the interim custody of the respondent-accused by executing an indemnity bond for a sum of Rs.1,00,000/- with a surety to the likesum amount. 4. The petitioner-State is questioning the legality, correctness and propriety of the finding of the said order of the trial Court. It is the case of the petitioner that the respondent-accused is the owner of Swaraj Mazda canter lorry bearing registration No .KA-26/5185 and this vehicle was involved in the case registered in CC.No .860/2016 on the file of the Senior Civil and JMFC , Ranebennur for the of fences punishable under Sections 21, 4 , 4(1A) of the Mines and Minerals (Development and Regulation) Act, 1957 (‘the Act’ for short) and under Rules 3 , 42, 43 of the Karnataka Minor Mineral Concession Rules , 1994 (‘the Rules’ for short). After filing of the chargesheet, the learned Senior Civil Judge and JMFC committed the matter to the trial Court in S.C.No .133/2018. This being the state o f af fairs, the respondent-accused approached the trial Court seeking interim custody of the vehicle under Section 457 o f Cr.P.C. The application was opposed by the pe titioner herein by filing a detailed objection. The learned trial Judge considered the objections o f the prosecution and passed the order for release o f vehicle on execution of indemnity bond for a sum o f Rs.1 ,00,000/- with a surety to the likesum. 5. Learned High Court Government Pleader submits that the order of the learned trial Judge is contrary to the law and the provisions of the Rules and that the impugned order has been passed by the trial Judge without considering sub-Rule(8) of Rule 43 o f the Rules. 5. Learned High Court Government Pleader submits that the order of the learned trial Judge is contrary to the law and the provisions of the Rules and that the impugned order has been passed by the trial Judge without considering sub-Rule(8) of Rule 43 o f the Rules. He further submits that the very purpose of enactment o f this amendment to sub-Rule(8) of Rule 43 o f the Rules was to put stringent conditions and to send a message to these kind of violations where the skilled sand mining happens without proper regulations and accordingly, he sought for setting aside the order passed by the learned trial Judge . 6. Learned High Court Government Pleader draws attention o f this Court to the provisions of sub-Rule(8) o f Rule 43 of the Rules, which reads as under: “43………………… (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 thereo f, of security in the form of a renewable Bank Guarantee , of an amount equal to double the value of such vehicle , be fore the Competent Court having jurisdiction to try the offence on account o f which the seizure has been made: Proviso to sub-Rule(8) reads as under: “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. On perusal of the said Rules, it is observed that the legislature has framed this Rule with deliberate intention to provide cheques and balance with regard to the minor minerals, controlling o f unauthori zed transportation and unauthorized quarrying offences. The learned trial Judge has considered the said objections and proposition o f the Rule laid down under sub-Rule(8) o f Rule 43 of the Rules while considering the application for release o f vehicle. It was the contention o f the respondent be fore the trial Court that the vehicle is required for day-to-day use and that if the vehicle is exposed to natural elements , it will be degraded and it will not be in a position to use and undertook to abide by any conditions imposed by the Court for release of the said vehicle . The learned High Court Government Pleader further submits that in view of the amendment to sub-Rule(8) of Rule 43 o f the Rules, stringent conditions have to be imposed. The of fences under the Rules and the unauthorized transportation are conducted in a rampant manner and seeks for indulgence o f this Court. 8. I have perused the order passed by the learned trial Judge and considered the submissions made by the learned High Court Government Pleader. 9. It is seen from the records that the learned trial Judge has considered the submissions made by the State for objecting to release the vehicle on providing a bank guarantee and sought for renewable bank guarantee and has come to a conclusion that, if the vehicle is retained at the Police Station premises and exposed to natural elements , it will be degraded day-by-day whereas , if it is released to the custody of the respondent-accused, it can be put to use. There fore, the respondent-accused can be put to terms by imposing conditions and accordingly, the application was allowed. 10. It is true that severe conditions by way of amendment has been imposed by renewable of bank guarantee to the extent of double the amount in case of complaint filed under the provisions o f Sections 21 , 4, 4(1A) of the Act and under Rules 3, 42 , 43 of the Rules. 11. Learned High Court Government Pleader has brought to the notice of this Court with regard to the order passed in case wherein similar bank guarantee was imposed by this Court for release of vehicle for violation of the Act and the Rules. One such matter was taken to the Hon’ble Supreme Court in SLP(CRIMINAL)Diary No .36978/2018 wherein the State had challenged one o f the orders with regard to the authority having no power to impose lesser condition and authority could ask for renewable bank guarantee while releasing the vehicle . In the said SLP, the Hon’ble Supreme Court permitted the petitioner to approach this Hon’ble Court for consideration and accordingly, the same is yet to be moved by the State for consideration. 12. In the said SLP, the Hon’ble Supreme Court permitted the petitioner to approach this Hon’ble Court for consideration and accordingly, the same is yet to be moved by the State for consideration. 12. After considering the submissions made by the learned High Court Government Pleader, I am of the opinion that it may be too harsh to impose a condition for putting the respondent to furnish a renewable bank guarantee whereas it should be with the wise discretion o f this Court to impose condition on the facts and circumstances of each case while deciding the application for release of vehicle. It is also necessary to mention at this stage that in the decision of the Coordinate bench of this Hon’ble Court in Crl.P .No .3552/2018 which was disposed of on 12.07.2018 , the similar situation arose for consideration wherein a renewable bank guarantee of an amount equal to double the value of the said vehicle was imposed and the same was challenged . This Court has set aside the said order o f the trial Court and imposed the condition for release o f the vehicle by furnishing of two solvent sureties rather than renewable bank guarantee as the same was felt that it was harsh on the owner of the vehicle. Subsequently, a similar petition for release o f vehicle came to be dismissed by the trial Court and the same was challenged before this Hon’ble Court in WP.No .112502/2019, wherein it was held that the petitioner therein shall execute an indemnity bond for release o f the vehicle. In another petition, the petitioner sought for relaxation of condition imposed by the trial Court to furnish a renewable bank guarantee. On challenge, this Court in Crl .P.No.100875/2019, relaxed the condition of the renewable bank guarantee and directed the Sessions Court to release the vehicle on furnishing the indemnity bond. 13. In another petition, the petitioner sought for relaxation of condition imposed by the trial Court to furnish a renewable bank guarantee. On challenge, this Court in Crl .P.No.100875/2019, relaxed the condition of the renewable bank guarantee and directed the Sessions Court to release the vehicle on furnishing the indemnity bond. 13. Therefore , I am of the considered view that the order passed in the present case by the learned trial Judge releasing the vehicle of the respondent-accused on executing an indemnity bond o f Rs.1,00,000/- with surety for the likesum with certain conditions, cannot be found fault with and it is necessary to mention here that the vehicle i f kept idle and lying in the Police Station, will be exposed to natural elements and gets degraded day-by-day and to impose double the value o f such vehicle or a renewable bank guarantee , may be too harsh on the respondent-accused. Accordingly, the trial Court has rightfully come to the conclusion that by releasing vehicle on executing indemnity bond for a sum of Rs.1 ,00,000/- with a surety for the likesum, so also, consistently this Court has held that the indemnity bond would be sufficient for release of vehicle under the circumstances of the of fences as imposed herein. Therefore , the order of the trial Court does not call for interference and the petition is accordingly dismissed.