Karnataka High Court
Mahammed Haneef Guddemane vs The State Of Karnataka on 29 November, 2022
Author: N.S.Sanjay Gowda
Bench: N.S.Sanjay Gowda
-1-
WP No. 105252 of 2022
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA, DHARWAD BENCH
DATED THIS THE 29TH DAY OF NOVEMBER, 2022
BEFORE
THE HON'BLE MR JUSTICE N.S.SANJAY GOWDA
WRIT PETITION NO. 105252 OF 2022 (GM-RES)
BETWEEN:
MAHAMMED HANEEF GUDDEMANE
S/O ABDUL KHADER,
AGE. 36 YEARS, OCC.
R/O. 4-128, GUDDEMANE HOUSE,
NEAR SYNDICATE BANK,
62 THOKUR, JOKATE,
MANGALORE UK 575030.
...PETITIONER
(BY SRI PRASHANT MATHAPATI, ADVOCATE)
AND:
1. THE STATE OF KARNATAKA
THROUGH KUMATA P.S.,
REPRESENTED BY ITS
STATE PUBLIC PROSECUTOR,
HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA,
DHARWAD-580011.
2. THE ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER
KUMATA, TAL. KUMTA,
DISTRICT UTTARA KANNADA 581332.
...RESPONDENTS
(BY SRI SHIVAPRABHU HIREMATH, AGA)
THIS WRIT PETITION IS FILED UNDER ARTICLES 226
AND 227 OF THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA PRAYING TO ISSUE
WRIT OF CERTIORARI OR ANY OTHER ORDER OR DIRECTION
QUASHING THE IMPUGNED ORDER DATED 03-02-2022 IN
BEARING NO. MAG/CATTLE/VIV/03/2020-21 PASSED BY THE
RESPONDENT NO. 2 AS PER ANNEXURE-D AND TO ISSUE
DIRECTION TO 2ND RESPONDENT TO RELEASE THE VEHICLE
-2-
WP No. 105252 of 2022
BEARING NO. KA-19/AC-4708 ON THE SURETY PURSUANT
THERETO IN THE INTEREST OF JUSTICE.
THIS PETITION COMING ON FOR PRELIMINARY HEARING,
THIS DAY, THE COURT MADE THE FOLLOWING:
ORDER
The vehicle of the petitioner bearing No.KA-19/AC- 4708 was seized while it was allegedly being used for transportation of cattle, thereby contravening the provisions of the Karnataka Prevention of Slaughter and Preservation of Cattle Act, 2020 (for short 'the Act').
2. Acting under Section 8(4) of the Act, the Sub- Divisional Magistrate has passed the impugned order releasing the vehicle of the petitioner subject to the petitioner furnishing a Bank guarantee of Rs.8,50,000/-. This sum being derived from a report given by the Motor Vehicles Inspector.
3. In the complaint registered by the Police on 24.06.2021, the value of the petitioner's vehicle was assessed at Rs.6,00,000/- by the Police authorities. -3- WP No. 105252 of 2022 However, the Motor Vehicle Inspector has submitted a report stating that its value is Rs.8,50,000/-.
4. Learned AGA furnishes another valuation report of the Motor Vehicle Inspector which was enclosed along with the charge sheet, in which, it is stated that the value of the vehicle was Rs.7,25,000/-. It is therefore clear that there are different valuations of the vehicle.
5. Section 8(4) of the Act provides for the Sub Divisional Magistrate to release the material including the vehicle on production of Bank guarantee equal to the value as estimated by him.
6. In this view of the matter, it was incumbent upon the Sub Divisional Magistrate to have independently estimated the value of the vehicle. The valuation report submitted by the learned AGA does not even indicate the date of manufacture of the vehicle and its present condition. In short, there is no basis made out by the Motor Vehicles Inspector to arrive at a figure of -4- WP No. 105252 of 2022 Rs.8,50,000/- or Rs.7,25,000/-. Since the value of the vehicle has not been correctly estimated, it would be appropriate to set aside the impugned order and remand the matter to the Sub Divisional Magistrate with a direction to him to estimate the market value of the vehicle afresh.
7. The petitioner is also permitted to indicate the market value as estimated by him and the Sub Divisional Magistrate shall consider the case put forth by the petitioner and pass appropriate orders in accordance with law within a period of two months from the date of receipt of a copy of this order.
8. The Sub Divisional Magistrate shall also take into consideration the condition of the vehicle as it exists before he passes an order.
SD JUDGE CKK