IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU DATED THIS THE 11TH DAY OF OCTOBER 2017 BEFORE THE HON’BLE MRS. JUSTICE K.S. MUDAGAL CRIMINAL REVISION PETITION NO. 931/2017 BETWEEN:
Basavaraju, Muniswamy B, Aged about 48 years, Residing at M.N.P. M. Circle, Kuppedada, Belagola Hobli, Srirangapattana Taluk, Mandya District -540 104. … Petitioner (By Sri. K. Lakshmikanth, Advocate) AND State of Karnataka, K.R.S. Police Station, Mandya District. … Respondent (By Sri. Nazrulla Khan, HCGP) This criminal revision petition is filed under section 82 of Cr.P.C. praying to set aside the order dated 22.10.2016 passed on the application filed by the petitioner under Section 457 of Cr.P.C. in S.C. No.5052/2016 by the III Additional District and Sessions Judge, Mandya Sitting at Srirangapattana and release the vehicle bearing No. KA-11-EF-2277.
This criminal revision petition is coming on for Admission this day, the Court made the following:
ORDER This matter coming on for admission is heard by the consent of both the parties on merits.
2. This revision petition is preferred against the order dated 22.10.2016 passed by the III Additional Sessions Judge, Mandya sitting at Srirangapattana, on the application filed by the petitioner under Section 457 of Cr.P.C. in S.C. No.5052/2016. The said mater arose out of crime No.60/2016 registered by K.R.S. Police Station.
3. K.R.S. Police charge sheeted one John Robart @ Robard @ Rabbi @ Robartson and 5 others in the said case for the offence punishable under Sections 143, 147, 148, 302 read with Section 149 IPC which was registered in CC. No.152/2016 before the Jurisdictional Magistrate. Petitioner is CW 8 in the said charge sheet.
4. As per the prosecution, accused used the vehicle/motor cycle bearing registration No. KA-11-EF- 2277 for commission of said offences. The Investigating Officer seized the said vehicle and reported the seizure under P.F. No. 48/2016 to the Court. The petitioner applied under Section 457 of Cr.P.C for interim custody of the said vehicle. The trial court, by the impugned order, rejected the said application on the sole ground that in case the petitioner fails to produce the vehicle during the trial, the prosecution may face hardship in proving its case.
5. The petitioner has produced the copy of the registration certificate of the vehicle. The prosecution does not dispute the petitioner’s ownership over the vehicle. Trial court has not rejected the application on that ground.
6. The petitioner sought interim custody of the vehicle on the ground that the parking of the vehicle before the police station is likely to cause damage to the vehicle and reduces its value due to idling and exposure to sun, rain and air.
7. The Hon’ble Supreme Court in Judgment reported in (2002) Supp (3) SCR 39 of Sunderbhai Ambalal Desai Vs. State of Gujarat has held that generally interim custody of vehicles shall be granted. Further the following guidelines are laid down for release of the vehicle.
“12. For this purposes, if material on record indicates that such articles belong to the complainant at whose house theft, robbery or dacoity has taken place, then seized articles be handed over to the complainant after:-
(1) preparing detailed proper panchanama of such articles:
(2) taking photographs of such articles and a bond that such articles would be produced if required at the time of trial; and (3) after taking proper security.
13. For this purpose, the Court may follow the procedure of recording such evidence, as it thinks necessary, as provided under Section 451 Cr.P.C. The bond and security should be taken so as to prevent the evidence being lost, altered or destroyed. The Court should see that photographs or such articles are attested or countersigned by the complainant, accused as well as by the person to whom the custody is handed over. Still however, it would be the function of the Court under Section 451 Cr.P.C. to impose any other appropriate condition.”
8. The apprehension that the petitioner may not produce the vehicle before the Court, during the trial can be remedied by imposing suitable conditions. Having regard to these facts, the impugned order suffers the test of legality, propriety and correctness.
9. Therefore the petition is allowed, impugned order is hereby set aside. The petitioner’s application under Section 457 of Cr.P.C. is allowed. He is granted interim custody of the vehicle bearing registration No. KA 12/EF-2277 subject to the following conditions.
(1) He shall execute the Indemnity Bond on a sum of Rs.1,00,000/- (Rupees One Lakh Only) and furnish one surety for the likesum to the satisfaction of the Trial Court.
(2) He shall produce the vehicle with its documents as and when required by the Court.
(3) The Investigating Officer shall take photograph of the vehicle from all angles and attest the same and produce before the Court.
(4) Prepare a detailed, proper Panchanama of the vehicle released to the petitioner.
Petition is disposed off accordingly.
Sd/- JUDGE BVK