IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU DATED THIS THE 03RD DAY OF JANUARY 2019 BEFORE THE HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE JOHN MICHAEL CUNHA CRIMINAL PETITION NO.2621 OF 2013 BETWEEN:
M/S SHRIRAM TRANSPORT FINANCE CO. LTD BRANCH OFFICE AT:
2ND FLOOR RAJATH COMPLEX, B.M. ROAD HASSAN REP BY ITS GPA HOLDER N.S. GOPINATH S/O SHIVARAME GOWDA ... PETITIONER (BY SRI: K PRASANNA SHETTY, ADVOCATE) AND:
1. STATE OF KARNATAKA BY KONANUR POLICE STATION, ARAKALAGUD TALUK HASSAN DISTRICT REP BY STATE PUBLIC PROSECUTOR HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA BENGALURU-560001.
2. RAVI AGED ABOUT 40 YEARS S/O JAWAREGOWDA REP BY HIS GPA HOLDER SMT. NINGAMMA W/O JAWAREGOWDA BOTH ARE R/AT SHAMBUNATHAPURA VILLAGE, KASABA HOBLI, ARAKALAGUD TALUK HASSAN DISTRICT-573115.
(BY SRI: NASRULLA KHAN, HCGP FOR R1 ... RESPONDENTS SRI: GIRISH B. BALADARA, ADVOCATE FOR R2) ---
THIS CRL.P IS FILED U/S. 482 CR.P.C PRAYING TO QUASH THE ORDER DATED:8.3.2013 PASSED BY THE ADDITIONAL SESSIONS JUDGE AND PRESIDING OFFICER, FAST TRACK COURT-I, HASSAN IN CRIMINAL REVISION PETITION NO.34/2013.
THIS CRL.P COMING ON FOR ADMISSION THIS DAY, THE COURT MADE THE FOLLOWING:-
O R D E R Petitioner has sought to quash the order dated 08.03.2013 passed by the Additional Sessions Judge and Presiding Officer, Fast Track Court-1, Hassan, in Criminal Revision Petition No.34/2013.
2. By the said order, learned Sessions Judge has allowed the revision petition filed by the second respondent herein and has directed release of the lorry bearing registration No.KA.18.1655 in favour of the power of attorney holder of second respondent, on her executing an indemnity bond in a sum of Rs.6,00,000/- with a surety for the likesum.
3. The contention of the petitioner is that the petitioner is a Financier who had advanced vehicle loan to the second respondent on the charge of TATA heavy goods vehicle bearing registration No.KA.12.A.2925. The second respondent tampered with the registration number of the said vehicle and by repainting the registration number as KA.18.1655, allowed to use the said vehicle for transportation of sand. It is the contention of the petitioner that in respect of alleged fraud and tampering done by the second respondent, he has filed a complaint in Crime No.21/2012 and a charge-sheet is already laid against the second respondent and hence, the second respondent is not entitled for the custody of the involved vehicle.
4. Refuting the contentions, learned counsel appearing for the second respondent would contend that the second respondent is the RC owner of the said vehicle. Merely because the petitioner has lodged a complaint against the second respondent alleging tampering of the number plate of the vehicle does not disentitle the second respondent for the interim custody of the vehicle. The petitioner has not produced any document to show that it has advanced any loan in respect of the lorry bearing No.KA.18.1655 and therefore, there is no illegality whatsoever in the order passed by the revisional court.
5. Learned HCGP appearing for the first respondent - State has argued in support of the order passed by the revisional court in Criminal Revision Petition No.34/2013.
6. In the light of the contentions urged by the parties, the only question that arises for consideration is, Who among the rival claimants is entitled for the interim custody of the seized vehicle bearing registration No.KA.18.1655?
7. Initially, petitioner as well as the second respondent moved separate applications under section 457 of Cr.P.C., before the trial court seeking interim custody of the vehicle seized in Crime No.292/2011. However, neither the petitioner nor the second respondent were able to produce any prima facie document of title in respect of the seized vehicle. As such, the learned Magistrate dismissed the applications of both the claimants. On revision, the revisional court, however, has proceeded on the basis that the second respondent herein is the RC owner of the seized vehicle. But except making an observation in the impugned order that the second respondent is the R.C. owner of the seized vehicle, the Revisional Court appears to have not bothered to look into the said document to ascertain the ownership or the charge or hypothecation created thereon. Even before this Court, the learned counsel for the second respondent is unable to produce the original registration certificate in respect of the said vehicle to prove his title or ownership thereon.
8. According to the petitioner, he had advanced a vehicle loan in respect of TATA heavy goods vehicle bearing registration No.KA.12.A.2925. However, presently, there is dispute with regard to the very identity of the said seized vehicle inasmuch as the Investigating Officer himself has submitted before the trial Court that the original registration No.KA.12.A.2925 of the vehicle has been erased and registration No.KA.18.1655 has been repainted on the number plate of the seized vehicle. Undeniably, the said act could emanate only from the RC owner and not by any other person. Therefore, RC owner who is facing the charge of fraud and manipulation cannot take advantage of his own crime and seek custody of the vehicle. That apart, the offence alleged against the second respondent is that the vehicle owned by him was used for transportation of sand, a minor mineral falling within the provisions of MMDR Act. Therefore, in my view, the second respondent is not entitled for the interim custody of the vehicle in question.
9. Insofar as the claim of the petitioner is concerned, the contention of the petitioner is that it had advanced vehicle loan to the second respondent for the purchase of TATA heavy goods vehicle bearing registration No.KA.12.A.2925. But the vehicle seized during the course of investigation bears registration No.KA.18.1655. In view of this discrepancy, even the Financier (petitioner) cannot take interim custody of the vehicle until the identity of the vehicle is determined and the proceedings pending against the second respondent as well as accused in Crime No.292/2011 are decided by the trial court.
10. For the above reasons, the impugned order dated 08.03.2013 passed by the Additional Sessions Judge and Presiding Officer, Fast Track Court-1 at Hassan in Criminal Revision Petition No.34/2013 is quashed. Respondent No.2 is directed to return/produce the vehicle released to his interim custody before the Court within seven days from the date of this order, whereafter the trial court shall proceed with the trial and shall pass appropriate order under Section 452 of Cr.P.C., for disposal of the property in accordance with law.
Petition is allowed as indicated above.
Sd/- JUDGE Bss