IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU DATED THIS THE 2ND DAY OF APRIL, 2019 BEFORE THE HON’BLE MR.JUSTICE ARAVIND KUMAR CRIMINAL PETITION NO.1769/2019 BETWEEN:
SRI. RAGHOTHAMA L S/O SRI. LAKSHMINARAYANA AGED ABOUT 26 YEARS R/A NO.557, 12TH CROSS 12TH MAIN, BHARATH NAGARA 2ND STAGE, BENGALURU – 560 091 (RC OWNER OF THE VEHICLE TATA 2518 BEARING REGN NO.KA-41-C-3762) ... PETITIONER (BY SRI. NITHYA NANDA MURTHY., ADVOCATE) AND:
1. STATE OF KARNATAKA BY MINES AND GEOLOGY DEPARTMENT RAMANAGARA – 562 159 (REPRESENTED BY THE SENIOR GEOLOGIST) 2. STATE BY MAGADI POLICE BOTH (REPRESENTED BY ITS PUBLIC PROSECUTOR) AT THE HIGH COURT BUILDING, BENGALURU - 560 001.
... RESPONDENTS (BY SRI. S. RACHAIAH., HCGP) THIS CRIMINAL PETITION IS FILED UNDER SECTION 482 CR.P.C PRAYING TO QUASH THE COMPLAINT FILED BY THE DEPARTMENT OF MINES AND GEOLOGY, RAMANAGARA AND THE PROCEEDINGS IN SPL.C.NO.153/2018 (C.C.NO.660/2018) PENDING BEFORE THE PRINCIPAL DISTRICT AND SESSIONS JUDGE, RAMANAGARA (SPECIAL COURT DESIGNATED) AS THE COMPLAINT IS NOT TENABLE, BAD IN LAW AND ILLEGAL.
THIS CRIMINAL PETITION COMING ON FOR ADMISSION THIS DAY, THE COURT MADE THE FOLLOWING:
O R D E R Heard Sri. Nithya Nanda Murthy, learned Advocate appearing for petitioner and Sri. S. Rachaiah, learned HCGP appearing for respondents. Perused case papers.
2. Vehicle bearing registration No.KA-41-C- 3762 came to be seized alleging commission of offences punishable under Sections 21(1) of Mines and Minerals (Development and Regulations) Act, 1957 and Section 43(8) of Karnataka Mineral Concession Rules,1994 thereafter a private complaint came to be filed in P.C.R.No.177/2018 on 31.08.2018. Thus, vehicle has been seized even before filing of the complaint.
3. Prima facie, seizure is bad in law. Learned Special Judge has directed interim custody of the vehicle to the petitioner subject to conditions and one such condition imposed is, furnishing of bank guarantee to the tune of `50,00,000/-.
4. Since seizure of the vehicle is prior to filing of the private complaint and same being illegal, this Court by following earlier decisions has held that unless there are special reasons, stringent condition should not be imposed vide SHRI SHAMBULINGAPPA vs THE STATE OF KARNATAKA (Crl.P.No.100868/2018 decided on 25.04.2018) .
5. In these circumstances, condition No.(1) imposed by the learned Special Judge by order dated 10.09.2018 directing the petitioner to furnish bank guarantee to the tune of `50,00,000/- requires to be relaxed.
Hence, I proceed to pass the following:
ORDER (i) Criminal Petition is hereby allowed.
(ii) Condition No.(1) imposed by the Principal District and Sessions Judge, Ramanagara by order dated 10.09.2018 in Crl.Misc.No.443/2018 is hereby relaxed and it is ordered that vehicle should be released subject to the petitioner furnishing indemnity bond for a sum of Rs.50,00,000/- with one surety for the likesum to the satisfaction of the jurisdictional Court and trial Court shall not insist the petitioner to produce the solvency certificate.
SD/- JUDGE RU