IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU DATED THIS THE 12TH DAY OF MARCH, 2019 BEFORE THE HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE K.NATARAJAN CRIMINAL REVISION PETITION No.310 of 2019 BETWEEN K.L. RAMESH, S/O. LOKAPPA GOWDA, AGED ABOUT 57 YEARS, KARAVALLI VILLAGE, MEGUR POST, KOPPA TALUK, CHIKKAMAGALURU DISTRICT – 577 101.
REPRESENTED BY HIS G.P.A HOLDER, K.M. SANDESH, S/O. D. MANJAPPA GOWDA, AGED ABOUT 33 YEARS, R/O. KATTEGADDE, HEURU VILLAGE, KOPPA TALUK, CHIKKAMAGALURU DISTRICT – 577 101.
(BY SRI GIRISH B. BALADARE, ADVOCATE) …PETITIONER AND 1. A.S. DAYANANDA, S/O. SHIVARAME GOWDA, AGED ABOUT 38 YEARS, GEALOGIST, MINES AND MINEALS DEPARTMENT, A.I.T. CIRCLE, JYOTHINAGARA POST, CHIKKAMAGALURU DISTRICT – 577 101.
2. THE STATE OF KARNATAKA BY, THE SUB INSPECTOR, BALEHONNUR POLICE STATION, BALEHONNUR, CHIKKAMAGALUR DISTRICT. REPRESENTED BY SPP, HIGH COURT BUILDING, BANGALORE – 01.
(BY SRI K.P. YOGANNA, HCGP) …RESPONDENTS THIS CRIMINAL REVISION PETITION IS FILED UNDER SECTION 397 READ WITH 401 CR.P.C PRAYING TO SET ASIDE AND MODIFY THE ORDER DATED 20.02.2019 PASSED BY THE PRINCIPAL DISTRICT AND SESSIONS JUDGE, CHIKKAMAGALURU IN CRL.A.No.29/2019 BY MODIFYING THE ORDER DATED 20.12.2018 PASSED BY THE CIVIL JUDGE AND JMFC AT N.R. PURA IN P.C.R.No.163/2018 AND MODIFY THE CONDITION BY IMPOSING THE FRESH SURETY INSTEAD OF BANK GUARANTEE OF RS.3,00,000/- AS ORDERED BY THE TRIAL COURT AND RELEASE THE TRACTOR TRAILER BEARING REG.No.KA-18/TA.572 AND KA-18/TA.573 TO THE PETITIONER CUSTODY.
THIS CRIMINAL REVISION PETITION COMING ON FOR ORDERS THIS DAY, THE COURT MADE THE FOLLOWING:
ORDER Learned High Court Government Pleader takes notice for the State-respondent.
2. This revision petition is filed by the petitioner, who is the RC holder of the vehicle in question involved in the offences punishable under Section 200 of IPC and Sections 4(1), 4(1-A), 9, 23c (1)(e) and (g), 24(10(e) read with Section 21(1) of the Mines and Minerals (Regulation and Development) Act, 1957 (for short ‘MMRD Act’). The Trial Court released the vehicle in favour of the petitioner by imposing certain conditions, which are as follows;
“1. The applicant shall execute indemnity bond for Rs.4,50,000/- and a surety for like sum.
2. The applicant is directed to furnish the bank guarantee of Rs.9,00,000/-
3. The applicant shall produce the above said vehicle whenever directed by this Court or Department of Mines and Geology, Chikkamagaluru.
4. The applicant shall not alienate or transfer the said vehicle.
5. The applicant shall not change the color or nature of the vehicle.
6. He shall not use the said vehicle for similar type of offence till the disposal of the case.
7. Investigating Officer is directed to take photographs of said seized vehicle from different angles with C.D. and also along with the applicant.”
3. Being aggrieved by Condition No.2 imposed by the Magistrate that is to furnish Bank Guarantee for Rs.9,00,000/-, he preferred an appeal in Crl.A.No.29/2019 before the Principal District and Sessions Judge, Chikkamagaluru, In the appeal, the Appellate Court relaxed Condition No.2 and ordered to furnish renewal Bank Guarantee to an extent of Rs.3,00,000/-, which is challenged in this revision petition.
4. Learned counsel for the petitioner strenuously contended that the Magistrate, while passing the order, has already imposed a condition for executing indemnity bond for Rs.4,50,000/- with a surety for the likesum and in addition to that, Bank Guarantee was also imposed for Rs.9,00,000/-, which is patently illegal. The value of the vehicle itself would not exceed 3 to 4 lakhs as on the date of its seizure. The original value of the new vehicle is not more than 8 to 9 lakhs. Such being the case, insisting for a Bank guarantee for Rs.9,00,000/- is illegal and the Appellate Court has also committed an error in modifying the order by imposing a condition to execute indemnity bond as well as renewable Bank Gurantee for Rs.3,00,000/- and hence, prayed for setting aside of the same.
5. Learned counsel for the petitioner, in support of his arguments, relied upon the order of this Court in the case of Fayaz vs. Sub-Inspector of Police and another, passed in Crl.P.No.490/2019 disposed off on 06.02.2019.
6. On the other hand, the contention of learned High Court Government Pleader that the vehicle was seized under the Special Act and if the vehicle is released, there is every possibility of the vehicle being involved in similar offence, is not ruled out and in case the petitioner/accused is found guilty and convicted, the property is required to be confiscated by the State. The recovery of the value of the vehicle is very much important and it is contended that there is no error or illegality committed by the courts below while passing the order.
7. On perusal of the order passed by both the Courts below, it is clear that of-course the Magistrate as well as the Appellate Court allowed the application of the petitioner for releasing the vehicle for interim custody by invoking the provisions of Section 457 of Cr.P.C. Except Condition No.2, the Magistrate imposed condition of executing Bank Guarantee for Rs.9,00,000/-, which was modified by the Appellate Court by reducing it to Rs.3,00,000/-, which is patently illegal. Once the Court below has ordered for executing indemnity bond for the value of the vehicle with surety, the question of imposing one more condition for executing further bank gurantee for the same value is not correct. This Court has also taken a similar view in the case of Fayaz (supra) and modified the condition to execute only indemnity bond with a surety for the likesum. Therefore, without expressing any opinion in respect of the legality of the seizure of the vehicle by the Investigating officer, it is deemed fit and proper to modify the order passed by the Courts below in respect of Condition No.2 while releasing the vehicle in question and Condition No.1 is sufficient for the same. Accordingly, I pass the following order;
ORDER The Criminal Revision Petition is allowed.
Condition No.2 ordered by the Court below is hereby set aside and condition No.1 for executing indemnity bond for Rs.4,50,000/- with a surety for the likesum and the remaining conditions imposed by the Trial Court are confirmed.
In view of disposal of the main petition, I.A.No.1/2019 does not survive for consideration and the same is dismissed.
Sd/- JUDGE mv