ORDER : 1. This petition has been filed by the petitioner under Section 482 of Cr.P.C. praying to modify/relax condition imposed at Sl.No.1 in the order dated 27.11.2019 in Criminal Revision Petition No.42/2019 on the file of Principal District and Sessions Judge, Ramanagara. 2. I have heard the learned counsel for the petitioner and the learned High Court Government Pleader for the respondentState. 3. Though this case is listed for admission, with the consent of the learned counsel appearing for the parties it is taken up for final disposal. 4. The facts of the case are that on 11.10.2019 on credible information police seized the tipper lorry bearing registration No.KA.521854 while transporting construction stones and when they requested to produce the permit for carrying the minor minerals there was no permit and the said vehicle has been seized and a case has been registered for the offence punishable under Section 22 of the Mines and Minerals (Development and Regulation Act, 1957) and thereafter the petitioner filed an application under Section 457 of Cr.P.C. seeking release of the said vehicle. The learned Magistrate dismissed the petition. Being aggrieved by the same, the petitioner preferred Criminal Revision Petition. The learned Principal District and Sessions Judge, Ramanagara by impugned order allowed the petition by imposing certain conditions. Challenging the imposition of condition, the petitioner is before this Court. 5. It is the contention of the learned counsel for the petitioner that condition No.1 imposed by the Court below that the petitioner has to offer renewable bank guarantee for an amount of Rs.15,00,000/is harsh and it is not in accordance with law. It is his further submission that in the case of Sri.Santhosh Kanchan Vs. State of Karnataka in Criminal Petition No.3552/2018 this Court by observing Rule 43(8) of KMMC Rules has released the vehicle and under similar facts and circumstances the condition is required to be relaxed and the said vehicle may be released. It is his further submission that the petitioner has produced the Insurance Policy wherein the said tipper lorry has been valued for Rs.2,61,000/and he is ready to give renewable bank guarantee to the said amount and he is ready to abide by the other conditions. On these grounds he prayed to allow the petition and to relax the condition No.1 imposed by the learned Principal District and Sessions Judge, Ramanagara. On these grounds he prayed to allow the petition and to relax the condition No.1 imposed by the learned Principal District and Sessions Judge, Ramanagara. 6.Percontra, the learned High Court Government Pleader vehemently argued and submitted that the learned Principal District and Sessions Judge by taking into consideration the MMDR Act and KMMC Rules and particularly Rule 43 (6 to 8), reasonable condition has been imposed. There are no good grounds to interfere with the order of the trial Court. On these grounds he prayed to dismiss the petition. 7. I have carefully and cautiously gone through the submissions made by the learned counsel appearing for the parties and perused the records. 8. Before going to consider the grounds, for the purpose of brevity, I quote Rule 43subclause (6 to 8) of the KMMC Rules, which reads as under: (6). The Officer in charge of the check post or the barrier or the authorized 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 the 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 subrule (7) the seized vehicle shall not be released except under the orders of such Court. On close reading of the object of law and rules there are no good grounds for relaxing the condition. 9. On close reading of the object of law and rules there are no good grounds for relaxing the condition. 9. On close reading of the case, in the case of Sri.Santhosh Kanchan quotedsupraat paragraph No.6 it has been observed that by order dated 11.7.2018 in Criminal Petition No.4717/2018 the proceedings initiated under Section 21(1) of MMDR Act has been quashed and accused was not charge sheeted for the said offence. In that light the Coordinate Bench has come to the conclusion that the MMDR Act and seizure if it is reported under the said Act, then the Rule will made applicable and in the said case the MMDR Act and KMMC Rules are not applicable and only case has been left out under Section 379 of IPC. In that light, the condition imposed has been relaxed. But in the instant case, no such factual matrix are existing. But however, the Court below at paragraph 30 has made an observation that the petitioner has not produced any documents to show the value of the vehicle and on guess work it has come to the conclusion that the value of the lorry in question may be around Rs.18,00,000/and the registration certificate indicates that the vehicle is of the year 2007 and on its own motion it has evaluated the vehicle at the rate of Rs.7,50,000/- and directed to furnish the renewable bank guarantee of Rs.15,00,000/. That appears to be in accordance with law. If no valuation certificate has been produced and no document has been produced, then under such circumstances the Court below ought to have requested the RTO to value the said vehicle and then thereafter it could have fixed the value of the vehicle and by following Rule 43(8) it could have imposed the condition. 10. In that light, I am of the considered opinion that the matter requires to be set aside and sent back to the Principal District and Sessions Judge, Ramanagara to get the vehicle evaluated and thereafter impose condition No.1 and after compliance of the said condition the vehicle may be released. With the above observation, the petition is disposed.