IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU DATED THIS THE 23RD DAY OF JULY, 2019 BEFORE THE HON’BLE MR.JUSTICE JOHN MICHAEL CUNHA CRIMINAL PETITION No.3098/2016 BETWEEN:
The State of Karnataka by the Madiwala Police Station Bengaluru-560 068, Represented by the State Public Prosecutor High Court of Karnataka, Bengaluru.
(By Sri Dildar Shiralli, HCGP) AND:
Sri Vishwanath K.S.
S/o K.S.Shivashankar Shetty Aged about 45 years R/at No.12/1, 16th Cross, 7th Main, Ramaswamy Layout, Lakkasandra, Bengaluru-560 030.
(By Sri K.N.Shashidhar, Advocate) …Petitioner …Respondent This Criminal Petition is filed under Section 482 of Cr.P.C praying to set aside the order dated 12.02.2016 passed by the Court of the LII Additional City Civil and Sessions Judge, Bengaluru City, in Crl.R.P. No.963/2015 and allow this Criminal Petition.
This Criminal Petition coming on for Admission this day, the Court made the following:-
O R D E R Heard learned High Court Government Pleader for petitioner and learned counsel for respondent. Perused the records.
2. A lorry belonging to respondent bearing Registration No.KA.01 AP.0352 was seized in Crime No.2053/2015 registered for the alleged offence punishable under Section 7 of the Essential Commodities Act. The Respondent filed an application under Sections 451 and 457 of Cr.P.C. for interim custody of the said vehicle on the ground that he was the RC owner of the said vehicle. The learned Magistrate dismissed the application by order dated 7.12.2015 on the ground that investigation was in progress. Respondent challenged the said order before the LII Additional City Civil and Sessions Judge, Bengaluru, in Criminal Revision Petition No.963/2015 and by order dated 12.2.2016 the learned Sessions Judge allowed the revision petition and directed to release the aforesaid vehicle to the interim custody of the respondent on his executing Indemnity Bond for 75% of the value of the lorry with one surety for the likesum to the satisfaction of the learned Magistrate.
3. The State is before this Court challenging the impugned order passed by the learned Sessions Judge on the ground that the Criminal Court has no jurisdiction to release the vehicle seized in a proceedings under the Essential Commodities Act.
4. In support of his submission the learned High Court Government Pleader has placed reliance on the decision of the Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of State of Madhya Pradesh – vs – Uday Singh reported in 2019 SCC Online SC 420. Considering the provisions of the Forest Act as well as the decision of this Court in State of Karnataka Vs. KA Kunchindammed [(2002) 9 SCC 90], the Hon’ble Supreme Court has held that once the confiscation proceedings is initiated, the jurisdiction of the Criminal Court stands excluded, consequently criminal court gets no power to deal with the property seized under the Act.”
In view of the above position of law and fact, this petition stands dismissed.
Sd/- JUDGE *AP/-