IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU DATED THIS THE 2ND DAY OF DECEMBER, 2019 BEFORE THE HON’BLE MR.JUSTICE B.A. PATIL CRIMINAL REVISION PETITION NO.869/2019 BETWEEN:
Soma S/o Narasegowda, Aged about 40 years, R/at Uyigondanahalli Village, Hunsuru Taluk, Mysuru District-570 002. ... Petitioner (By Sri Saravana.S, Advocate for Sri Bharath.K, Advocate) AND:
The State of Karnataka By Senior Geologist, Dept. of Mines and Geology, Rept. By SPP, High Court Building, Bengaluru-560 001. ... Respondent (By Sri M. Divakar Maddur,HCGP) This Criminal Revision Petition is filed under Section 397 R/W 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.6,00,000/- as per Rule 43(8) of Karnataka Minor Minerals Concessions (Second Amendment Rules, 2017) with one surety for like sum.
This Criminal Revision Petition is coming on for Orders, this day, the court made the following:
ORDER Heard the learned counsel for the petitioner/accused and the learned High Court Government Pleader for respondent/State.
2. Though this case is listed for hearing on Interlocutory application but however, with the consent of the learned counsels appearing for the parties, the same is taken up for final disposal.
3. This petition has been filed by the petitioner/accused challenging the order passed by the Court of the Additional Civil Judge and JMFC., Srirangapatna in PCR No.18/2018 whereunder, the application filed for release of the vehicle was came to be allowed and the trial Court has imposed a condition to execute a renewable bank guarantee.
4. It is the submission of the learned counsel for the petitioner/accused that the trial Court without looking to the provisions of law, has directed the petitioner/accused to execute a renewable bank guarantee for double the amount of value of the vehicle which is not in accordance with law. It is his further submission that the imposition of condition to execute a renewable bank guarantee is not as contemplated under law. The said condition is too harsh. It is his further submission that he is ready to execute reasonable conditions and abide by whatever the conditions which are going to be imposed in this behalf. On these grounds, he prayed to allow the petition and to relax the conditions imposed by the trial Court.
5. Per contra, learned High Court Government Pleader vehemently argued and submitted that the Court below by exercising the discretion, has allowed the petition and released the vehicle in favour of the petitioner/accused by imposing some conditions. As per the Mines and Minerals (Development and Regulation) Act, 1957, the said vehicle is liable to be confiscated and in order to security of the vehicle, the said condition has been imposed. It is his further submission that the said condition is reasonable condition. On these grounds, he prayed to dismiss the petition.
6. I have carefully and cautiously gone through the submissions made by the learned counsel for both the parties and perused the record.
7. On perusal of the records, it indicate that the accused has filed an application for release of the vehicle and the said application was came to be allowed, subject to certain conditions. One of the condition imposed by the trial Court is that the petitioner/accused shall execute a renewable bank guarantee for double the amount of value of the vehicle i.e., Rs.6,00,000/- as per the Rule 43(8) of the Karnataka Minor Minerals Concession (Second Amendment Rules, 2017) with one surety for the like sum. But this Court, in the case of ASHOK S/O TUKARAN HALALI v. THE STATE OF KARNATAKA in Crl.P.No.100894/2019 dated 19.07.2019 and also in the case of MOHAMMED SHAMEER S/O IBRAHIM v.
STATE OF KARNATAKA, MINES AND GEOLOGY DEPARTMENT AND ANOTHER in Crl.RP.No.988/2019 dated 22.10.2019 has relaxed the condition by modifying the condition imposed by the trial Court.
Keeping in view of the said aspects, I am of the considered opinion that the order of the trial Court is not sustainable in law insofar imposition of the condition No.1 is concerned. In that light, the petition is allowed and condition No.1 is relaxed and the petitioner is directed to furnish the indemnity bond for Rs.6,00,000/- with two sureties to the satisfaction of the concerned jurisdictional Court and insofar as the other conditions are concerned, the same have been kept intact.
With the above observations, petition is disposed of.
Sd/- JUDGE HA/-