IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU DATED THIS THE 10TH DAY OF APRIL, 2019 BEFORE THE HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE K.NATARAJAN CRIMINAL REVISION PETITION No.428 of 2019 BETWEEN SRI MOHAMMAD ALI M.A. S/O. ABBAS, AGED ABOUT 44 YEARS, RESIDING AT BEHIND GADDIGE RAJARAJESHWARINAGAR, MADIKERI, KODAGU DISTRICT – 33.
(BY SRI PRATHEEP K.C., ADVOCATE) AND STATE OF KARNATAKA MINES & GEOLOGICAL DEPARTMENT, MADIKERI, KODAGU DISTRICT – 571 234. REPRESENTED BY SPP., HIGH COURT BUILDING, BANGALORE - 01.
(BY SRI K.P. YOGANNA, HCGP) ... PETITIONER ... RESPONDENT THIS CRIMINAL REVISION PETITION IS FILED UNDER SECTION 397 READ WITH 401 CR.P.C. PRAYING TO SET ASIDE THE JUDGMENT DATED 11.10.2018, PASSED BY THE PRINCIPAL DISTRICT AND SESSION JUDGE, KODAGU AT MADIKERI IN CRL.A.No.89/2018 AND SET ASIDE THE ORDER DATED 28.09.2018 IN P.C.No.351/2018 ON THE FILE OF THE PRINCIPAL CIVIL JUDGE AND JMFC, MADIKERI DIRECTING THE PETITIONER TO PAY BANK GUARANTEE OF Rs.1,50,000/- FOR RELEASE OF LORRY BEARING No.KA-12-A-7800 VIDE PF No.1/2018-19.
THIS CRIMINAL REVISION PETITION COMING ON FOR ORDERS THIS DAY, THE COURT MADE THE FOLLOWING:
ORDER This revision petition is filed by the petitioner under Section 397 of Cr.P.C. being aggrieved by the order passed by the Prl. Civil Judge and JMFC, at Madikeri in P.C.No.351/2018 on the application filed by the petitioner under Section 457 of Cr.P.C while releasing vehicle of the petitioner by imposing condition in respect of furnishing Bank Guarantee.
Heard learned counsel for the petitioner as well as learned High Court Government Pleader and perused the impugned order.
The case of the petitioner is that he said to be the owner of the vehicle bearing No.KA-12-A-7800 which was seized by the respondent-Mines and Geological Department, Madikeri, Kodagu District under P.F.No.1/2018-19 alleging that the vehicle was used for commission of offence. After seizure of the vehicle, a private complaint has been lodged by Senior Genealogist, Department of Mines and Geology, Kodagu, against the accused. The petitioner being the RC owner has filed application for releasing the vehicle seized by the complainant. The learned trial Judge allowed the application. However, while passing the order for release of the vehicle to the interim custody, a condition was imposed to furnish Bank Guarantee for a sum of Rs. 1,50,000/- along with one surety for likesum.
Learned counsel for the petitioner also brought to the notice of this Court that in similar cases, this Court by following earlier decisions has held that unless there are special reasons, stringent condition should not be imposed. Hence, this Court set aside the condition and ordered of imposing condition of Bank Guarantee is bad in law.
The learned counsel for the petitioner has also produced the order passed in criminal revision petition No. 375/2019 in the case of Abdul Rehaman Vs. A.S.Dayananda and another, wherein, the petitioner required to execute Indemnity Bond and to furnish Bank Guarantee. However, this Court modified the order and directed to execute Indemnity Bond with a surety.
The trial Court in paragraph No.14 considered the valuation made by the RTO in respect of the vehicle is at Rs. 1,10,000/-. Therefore, considering the value of the vehicle, the trial Court imposed the condition to execute the Bank Guarantee of Rs.1,50,000/- which is Rs.40,000/- more than the present value. Taking into consideration the order passed in similar cases, the order of imposing condition No.1 is very harsh and is required to be modified and direction to the petitioner to execute Indemnity Bond with a surety for the likesum that will meet the ends of justice.
The order of the trial Court in imposing condition No.1 by the trial Court is modified and the petitioner is directed to execute bond for Rs.2,00,000/- with a surety for the likesum to the satisfaction of the trial Court, the remaining conditions imposed by the trial Court is not disturbed.
Accordingly, the revision petition is disposed off.
SD/- JUDGE GBB