IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU DATED THIS THE 27TH DAY OF NOVEMBER, 2019 BEFORE THE HON’BLE Mr. JUSTICE G. NARENDAR WRIT PETITION No. 48888/2018 BETWEEN :
Sri. S. Rajashekar Aged about 44 years S/o. Shivaiah R/a. East Pet B.R. Road, Punganur Chittoor Andhra Pradesh – 571 257. … Petitioner (By Sri. Rajesh Shettigara, Adv.) AND :
State of Karnataka By Nangali P.S. Rep. by SPP High Court of Karnataka High Court Building Bangalore – 560 001. … Respondent (By Sri. R.D. Renukaradhya, HCGP) ---
This Writ Petition is filed under Articles 226 and 227 of the Constitution of India with a prayer to quash the order dated 13.07.2018 disallowing the prayer sought in the application filed by the petitioner and etc.
This Writ Petition coming on for Preliminary Hearing this day, the Court passed the following;
O R D E R Heard learned counsel for petitioner and learned High Court Government Pleader for respondent.
2. Petitioner is before this Court being aggrieved by the order dated 13.07.2018 passed in Crime No. 58/2018 on the application preferred by the petitioner under Section 451 and 457 of Cr.P.C. for release of motor vehicle – Bolero SLX 2WD 7 STR AC and P, LMV bearing registration No. AP-03-AL-7551. That the FIR came to be registered under Section 5-A of the Explosive Substances Act, 1908, Section 9(B) of Explosives Act, 1884 and Section 386 of IPC in P.F. No. 9/2018 dated 24.02.2018.
3. The claim of the petitioner is that the he had purchased the said vehicle in the year 2018 and that the vehicle is required for his day-to-day use and the vehicle has been in the custody of the Police for more than a year and condition of the vehicle has deteriorated. Hence, the petitioner has sought for release of the vehicle.
4. The trial Court, after going through the GPA produced by the petitioner has observed that the signature of the owner found in the RC Book and the GPA do not tally and hence it deemed the presence of the owner as proper and necessary and rejected the application of the petitioner.
5. It is the case of the petitioner that the vehicle was purchased in the year 2018 and that the RC Book is of the year 2010 and on account of passage of time there could have been some changes in the signatures.
6. Be that as it may. The trial Court has disbelieved the petitioner and rejected the application on the ground that he is not the owner. It is submitted by the learned High Court Government Pleader that GPA was not filed along with the application and was subsequently produced during the course of hearing.
7. In that view of the matter, this Court is of the considered opinion that the petition could be disposed of by granting liberty to the petitioner to make one more similar application along with necessary documents or shall attempt to make the same through the owner whose name is found in the RC Book.
Petition stands ordered accordingly.
Sd/- JUDGE LRS.