Karnataka High Court
Sri Ravi Prasad Nayak vs The Deputy Commissioner on 13 September, 2019
Author: B.Veerappa
Bench: B. Veerappa
1
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU
DATED THIS THE 13TH DAY OF SEPTEMBER, 2019
BEFORE
THE HON' BLE MR. JUSTICE B. VEERAPPA
WRIT PETITION No.44252/2017(GM-RES)
BETWEEN:
SRI RAVI PRASAD NAYAK,
S/O BABURAYA NAYAK,
AGED ABOUT 34 YEARS,
R/O GUDDABETTY RIVER SIDE,
MOODUBELLE POST,
UDUPI TALUK AND DISTRICT-577006.
... PETITIONER
(BY SRI CHANDRASHEKAR P. PATIL, ADVOCATE)
AND:
1. THE DEPUTY COMMISSIONER,
DAVANAGERE DISTRICT,
DAVANAGERE-577006.
2. THE ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER,
DAVANAGERE SUB DIVISION,
DAVANAGERE-577006.
3. STATE OF KARNATAKA BY
DAVANAGERE RURAL POLICE,
BY THE SUB INSPECTOR OF POLICE,
(LAW AND ORDER), REPRESENTED BY
STATE PUBLIC PROSECUTOR,
HIGH COURT BUILDING,
BANGALORE-560001
... RESPONDENTS
(BY MS. NILOUFER AKBAR, AGA)
......
2
THIS WRIT PETITION IS FILED UNDER ARTICLES 226 &
227 OF THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA PRAYING TO QUASH THE
ORDER OF THE LEARNED DEPUTY COMMISSIONER IN CRIME
NO.117/2017 VIDE LETTER DATED 21.8.2017 VIDE ANNEXURE-
G BY REJECTING THE MODIFICATION APPLICATION FILED BY
THE PETITIONER.
THIS WRIT PETITION COMING ON FOR ORDER THIS DAY,
THE COURT MADE THE FOLLOWING:
ORDER
The petitioner filed the present writ petition seeking to quash the Order of the Deputy Commissioner in Crime No.117/2017 dated 21.08.2017, as per Annexure-G by rejecting the modification application filed by the petitioner and for a writ of mandamus vide Annexure-F dated 16.08.2017 directing the respondent authorities to permit the petitioner to furnish any other surety for the release of the vehicle.
2. It is the case of the petitioner that he is the owner of the lorry bearing Registration No.KA-20/D-3961 and he is dependent on the said vehicle as it is his only source of income. The Assistant Commissioner of Police, Davanagere, filed complaint against one Sri H.M. 3 Umapathaiah and others for the offences punishable under Sections 307, 332, 353, 504 read with Section 34 of the Indian Penal Code and Sections 3 and 7 of the Essential Commodities Act, 1955. On the basis of the said complaint, the Davanagere Rural Police registered FIR in Crime No.117/2017. In the said proceedings, the lorry of the petitioner bearing Registration No.KA-20/D- 3961 was seized and therefore, petitioner filed an application under Section 457 of the Code of Criminal Procedure before the Deputy Commissioner, Davanagere, for release of the vehicle. The Deputy Commissioner allowed the application and ordered for interim custody of the vehicle in favour of the petitioner subject to petitioner furnishing the bank guarantee to the amount equivalent to `6,10,000/- vide intimation letter dated 17.07.2017. Since the petitioner was unable to furnish the bank guarantee and since the bank refused to issue such a guarantee, on 16.08.2017, the petitioner filed an application seeking modification 4 of the Order requesting the Deputy Commissioner to permit him to furnish other type of surety. The Deputy Commissioner, by the impugned Order dated 21.08.2017, rejected the application for modification and informed the petitioner to furnish the bank guarantee, as ordered earlier. Hence, the present writ petition is filed.
3. The State Government filed objections and contended that in view of the provisions of Section 6- A(c) of the Essential Commodities Act, 1955, the Deputy Commissioner is justified in passing the impugned Order and therefore, sought for dismissal of the petition.
4. I have heard the learned counsel for the parties to the lis.
5. Sri Chandrashekar P. Patil, learned counsel for the petitioner, reiterating the grounds urged in the memorandum of writ petition, contended that the 5 impugned Order passed by the Deputy Commissioner rejecting the application filed by the petitioner for modification and directing the petitioner to furnish the bank guarantee to the extent of market value of the vehicle in question is erroneous and contrary to the material on record. He further contended that, the impugned Order is contrary to the provisions of the Essential Commodities Act, 1955. Therefore, he sought to allow the writ petition.
6. Per contra, Ms. Niloufer Akbar, learned Additional Government Advocate, sought to justify the impugned Order.
7. Having heard the learned counsel for the parties, it is undisputed fact that the petitioner's vehicle has been seized by the jurisdictional police in Crime No.117/2017. It is also not in dispute that the Deputy Commissioner, by the intimation letter dated 17.07.2017 directed the petitioner to furnish the bank 6 guarantee, equal to the market value of the lorry i.e., `6,10,000/-. Therefore, petitioner filed an application seeking modification of the said Order and the said application came to be rejected. A careful perusal of the impugned Order Annexure-G dated 21.08.2017 reveals that the Deputy Commissioner relied upon the provisions of Section 6-A(c) of the Essential Commodities Act, 1955. The second proviso to Section 6-A(c) clearly depicts that in the case of any animal, vehicle, vessel or other conveyance used for the carriage of goods or passengers for hire, the owner of such animal, vehicle, vessel or other conveyance shall be given an option to pay, in lieu of its confiscation, a fine not exceeding the market price at the date of seizure of the essential commodity sought to be carried by such animal, vehicle, vessel or other conveyance. Section 6A of the Act clearly indicates confiscation of essential commodity. The entire reading of the said provision 7 does not depict that the petitioner has to give bank guarantee on the vehicle seized.
8. In view of the above, the impugned Order passed by the Deputy Commissioner cannot be sustained and the matter requires to be remanded to the Deputy Commissioner for reconsideration, afresh. Accordingly, writ petition is allowed. The matter is remanded to the Deputy Commissioner to reconsider the matter, afresh, in the light of the provisions of Section 6A(c) of the Essential Commodities Act, 1955, and pass fresh Orders strictly in accordance with law, within a period of four weeks from the date of receipt of certified copy of this Order.
Consequently, I.A.No.1/2018 is disposed off.
Sd/-
JUDGE kcm