IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU DATED THIS THE 15TH DAY OF APRIL, 2019 BEFORE THE HON’BLE MR.JUSTICE K.NATARAJAN CRIMINAL REVISION PETITION NO.376/2019 BETWEEN Geetha W/o. Beeregowda Aged about 35 years R/at: Vaddragudi Village H.D.Kote Taluk Mysuru District – 577757. ... Petitioner (By Sri B. Lethif, Advocate) AND The State of Karnataka By senior Geologist Dept. of Mines and Geology Rep. by SPP, High Court Building Bangalore – 560 001. ... Respondent (By Sri K.P.Yoganna, HCGP) This Criminal Revision Petition is filed under Section 397 read with 401 of Cr.P.C. praying to set aside the condition No.1 i.e. petitioner shall execute a renewable bank guarantee for double the amount of value of vehicle i.e. Rs.10,00,000/- as per Rule 43(8) of Karnataka Minor Minerals Concession (Second Amendment Rules 2017) with one surety for likesum, imposed by the Additional Civil Judge and JMFC at S.R.Patna, dated 22.11.2018 in PCR No.19/2018 while releasing vehicle bearing No.KA-11-A-4445 in P.F.No.3/2018 on an application filed under Section 457 of Cr.P.C. and set aside the order passed in Crl.R.P.No.185/2018 dated 31.12.2018 passed by the Principal Sessions Judge at Mandya.
This Criminal Revision Petition coming for admission on this day, the court made the following:
ORDER The petitioner has filed this petition being aggrieved by the order passed by the Additional Civil Judge and JMFC, Srirangapatna in PCR No.19/2018 in respect of imposing condition No.1 by releasing the tipper lorry of the petitioner is that the petitioner shall execute a renewable bank guarantee for double the amount of value of vehicle i.e. Rs.10,00,000/- (Rupees Ten Lakhs Only) in addition to the indemnity bond.
2. The facts of the case of the petitioner is that the petitioner is the RC owner of the tipper lorry bearing registration No.KA-11-A-4445 which said to be seized by the Mines and Minerals Department on 22.10.2018 in P.F.No.3/2018 and filed PCR before the Court below. The petitioner has filed an application for releasing of the vehicle which came to be allowed by the trial Court by imposing following conditions:
1. The applicant shall execute a renewable bank guarantee for double the amount of value of the vehicle i.e. Rs.10,00,000/- as per Rule 43(8) of Karnataka Minor Minerals Concession (Second Amendment Rules 2017) with one surety for the likesum.
2. The applicant shall not alienate nor change the colour and shape of the vehicle still pending of the trial.
3. The Investigating Officer is directed to draw mahazar while handing over the vehicle to the applicant and also furnish the photos on each side of the vehicle along with negative at the expenses of the applicant.
4. The applicant shall produce the said vehicle before the Investigation Officer whenever called upon to do so.
5. The applicant shall not use the vehicle for commit any offence.
The office shall issue release intimation only after receipt of bank guarantee, the photo, C.D., indemnity bond and detail mahazar of the vehicle is produced on record in the above case.
3. Learned counsel for the petitioner contended that the trial Court though ordered to executing indemnity bond after condition No.5 but condition No.1 is ordered to execute a bank guarantee for double the amount of the value of the vehicle i.e. Rs.10,00,000/- is challenged by the petitioner. He further submits that the vehicle was seized on 22.10.2018 prior to registering the case. Thereafter the PCR came to be filed on 26.10.2018. There is a violation of law under Section 21 of Minor Minerals (Development and Regulation) Act, 1957 (‘the MMDR Act’ for short). Therefore, the very imposing conditions itself is not legal. Hence, he prayed for set aside the same.
4. Learned counsel for the petitioner relied upon the order of this Court in Criminal Revision Petition No.375/2019 in a similar case in the case of Abdul Rehaman vs. A.S.Dayananda and others, wherein this Court has modified the order by imposing condition that the petitioner is directed to execute an indemnity bond with sureties. The same is not disputed by the learned High Court Government Pleader in respect of the order passed by this Court in an earlier occasion.
5. On perusal of the conditions no doubt the trial Court has relied upon the order of the Apex Court in the case of Sunderbhai Ambalal Desai vs. State reported in AIR 2003 S.C.638 and ordered to release the vehicle, but by imposing conditions which are not able to be complied with and it is impracticable and is nothing but denial of the releasing of the vehicle. Therefore, considering the facts and circumstances of the case, imposing condition that double the amount including indemnity bond and bank guarantee are not correct. Therefore, by imposing condition to execute indemnity bond for Rs.20,00,000/- with two sureties for the likesum be ordered which will meet the ends of the justice. Accordingly, I pass the following:
ORDER 1. Criminal Revision Petition is allowed.
2. In respect of condition No.1 in the impugned order for executing bank guarantee for Rs.20,00,000/- is modified as to execute indemnity bond for Rs.20,00,000/- with two sureties for the likesum to the satisfaction of the trial Court.
3. The remaining conditions are not altered.
In view of disposal of the main petition, I.A. No.1/2019 does not survive for consideration. Accordingly, I.A. No.1/2019 dismissed.
SD/- JUDGE KA