Karnataka High Court
Shrikanth vs The State Of Karnataka on 11 June, 2018
Author: H.B.Prabhakara Sastry
Bench: H.B.Prabhakara Sastry
CRL.P.No.3828/2018
:1:
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA
DHARWAD BENCH
DATED THIS THE 11TH DAY OF JUNE, 2018
BEFORE
THE HON'BLE DR.JUSTICE H.B.PRABHAKARA SASTRY
CRIMINAL PETITION NO.3828/2018
BETWEEN:
SHRIKANTH, S/O BABAN NIKKAM,
AGED ABOUT 30 YEARS,
OCC:BUSINESS,
R/O BALIGAR ONI, SAVADATTI,
DISTRICT BELAGAVI
PIN CODE 591104.
... PETITIONER
(BY SRI.K. L. PATIL, ADVOCATE))
AND:
THE STATE OF KARNATAKA
REP. BY STATE PUBLIC PROSECUTOR
THROUGH GARAG PS,
DISTRICT DHARWAD
PIN CODE-580009.
... RESPONDENT
(BY SRI. RAJA RAGHAVENDRA NAIK, HCGP)
---
THIS CRIMINAL PETITION IS FILED U/S.482 CR.P.C
PRAYING THAT THIS HON'BLE COURT MAY BE PLEASED TO
QUASH THE ORDER DATED 08.05.2018 PASSED IN
CRL.RP.NO.54/2018 ON THE FILE OF THE II ADDITIONAL
DISTRICT AND SESSIONS AND SPECIAL JUDGE, DHARWAD
AND QUASH THE ORDER DATED 16.04.2018 ON THE FILE
OF I ADDITIONAL CIVIL JUDGE AND JMFC, DHARWAD
PASSED IN GARAG P.S., CR.NO.60/2018.
CRL.P.No.3828/2018
:2:
THIS PETITION COMING ON FOR ADMISSION THIS
DAY, THE COURT MADE THE FOLLOWING:
ORDER
The respondent Police (Garag Police) have registered a case against one Sri. Prashant Nikkam, said to be the driver of the motor vehicle bearing registration No.KA- 24/M6356 on 29.03.2018 for the offence punishable under Section 98 of the Karnataka Police Act, 1963 R/w. Section 171E of the IPC, alleging that, when the complainant and other staff were at Tegur Check Post on National Highway No.4 conducting search of vehicles, they searched the vehicle under question i.e., Innova car bearing registration No.KA-24/M6356 also. In the search, they found some cash, gold and silver articles in the said vehicle, for which, according to the complainant police, no proper explanation was given by the driver of the vehicle, who was carrying the said goods. Since the State Assembly Election was declared and Code of Conduct was in force, the complainant police suspecting that the alleged unaccounted valuables said to have been CRL.P.No.3828/2018 :3: transported in the vehicle may be misused for the election process violating the Code of Conduct, seized the said Innova car bearing registration No.KA-24/M6356 along with some cash, gold and silver articles said to be found in the vehicle, by drawing a seizure panchanama and registered the case against one Sri. Prashant Nikkam said to be driving the said vehicle at that time, for the offence punishable under Section 171E of the IPC R/w. Section 98 of the Karnataka Police Act, 1963.
2. It appears that, thereafter, the present petitioner appeared before the I Addl. Civil Judge and JMFC Court at Dharwad, where the FIR was lodged by the complainant Police Station in Crime No.60/2018 and filed an application under Section 451 Cr.P.C. R/w. Section 457 Cr.P.C. seeking release of the motor vehicle in his favour, claiming himself to be the registered owner of the vehicle. By the order dated 16.04.2018, the said application came to be rejected.
CRL.P.No.3828/2018:4:
Against the said order of JMFC Court, the applicant Sri. Shrikant Baban Nikkam, preferred a Revision Petition before the Court of II Addl. District and Sessions and Special Judge at Dharwad in Criminal Revision Petition No.54/2018, which Court also by its order dated 08.05.2018, dismissed the revision petition filed under Section 397 Cr.P.C. It is against the said order, petitioner has preferred the present criminal petition under Section 482 Cr.P.C.
3. The learned HCGP having taken notice for the respondent, has appeared for respondent - State.
4. Heard the arguments from both sides.
5. Learned counsel for the petitioner in his argument submitted that, the Hon'ble Apex Court in several cases has repeatedly held that the articles seized in a case, more particularly the vehicles, shall not be retained beyond reasonable period by the Investigating Agency for no valid reason or purpose. In the instant CRL.P.No.3828/2018 :5: case, though at the time of ensuing elections the vehicle was seized, but now the election has long back been completed and no purpose would be served in retaining the vehicle. Further, it would also cause serious inconvenience and prejudice to the petitioner in carrying out his business.
6. The learned HCGP in his argument submitted that, even though the election has been completed, still continuation of vehicle under seizure is necessary, otherwise there is all the possibilities of the applicant, who has proved himself to be the owner of the vehicle, eliminating the vehicle or transferring it to somebody else or change its shape, nature and colour.
7. A perusal of the order dated 08.05.2018 passed by the immediate Court below go to show that, it has specifically held that the present petitioner is the lawful owner of the said vehicle and that necessary registration certificate and other documents are in his name. Even after noticing that he is the registered owner CRL.P.No.3828/2018 :6: of the vehicle, only on the ground that the Code of Conduct was in force in the area as on the date of the order, it has rejected the petition filed by the petitioner.
Admittedly, the election to the State Assembly has been held on main phase on 12.05.2018 and results have also been declared. No specific reason is shown as to the necessity of holding the vehicle under seizure by the complainant police. It is not their specific case that for any investigating purpose, the possession of the interim custody of the vehicle by them is required. The only apprehension expressed by the learned HCGP that the possibility of the petitioner/owner of the vehicle transferring the vehicle to anybody else or changing its nature, shape and colour can be checked by imposing reasonable restriction upon the petitioner. It cannot be ruled out that the petitioner, who claims to be a jeweller in his business, is said to have been using the said vehicle for his business purposes. The running motor vehicle, if kept in idle condition for a long time without attending for its maintenance, may also lose its road-worthiness. CRL.P.No.3828/2018 :7:
8. For all these reasons, I am of the view that the order dated 16.04.2018 passed by the I Addl. Civil Judge and JMFC Court at Dharwad on the application filed by the petitioner under Section 451 Cr.P.C. R/w. Section 457 Cr.P.C., for release of the vehicle and the order dated 08.05.2018 passed in Criminal Revision Petition No.54/2018 passed by the II Addl. District and Sessions Judge, Dharwad be set aside. The application filed by the petitioner under Section 451 R/w. Section 457 Cr.P.C. before the I Addl. Civil Judge and JMFC Court, Dharwad for release of the vehicle to the interim custody of the owner is allowed, however, with conditions as below:
i. The petitioner shall produce necessary documents including registration certificate before the concerned JMFC to establish his ownership over the vehicle.
ii. He shall not sell the vehicle or change its colour shape, in any manner.
iii. He shall produce at least four colour (minimum post card size) photographs of the vehicle from four different angles CRL.P.No.3828/2018 :8: covering the entirety of the vehicle in its true colour and also reflecting the registration number of the vehicle.
iv. He shall execute an indemnity bond to the satisfaction of the releasing Court and also provide two sureties to the quantum to be fixed by the JMFC Court.
v. He shall undertake to produce the vehicle as and when ordered by the Court.
Ordered accordingly.
With the above observations, the petition stands disposed of at the stage of admission.
Sd/-
JUDGE gab