Manjegowda vs The State Of Karnataka on 23 January, 2018

[Cites 9, Cited by 0]

Karnataka High Court

Manjegowda vs The State Of Karnataka on 23 January, 2018

Bench: K. N. Phaneendra

                         1



IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA, BENGALURU

     DATED THIS THE 23RD DAY OF JANUARY, 2018

                      BEFORE

     THE HON'BLE MR.JUSTICE K. N. PHANEENDRA

                CRL.P. NO. 7881/2017

BETWEEN

MANJEGOWDA
S/O DASEGOWDA
AGED ABOUT 45 YEARS
OWNER OF MVG CANTER VEHICLE,
BEARING REG NO KA-13-A-9995
R/AT MADAHALLY VILLAGE,
GANDASI HOBLIUMAKUR
ARASIKERE TLAUK, HASSAN DISTRICT - 572201.
                                 ... PETITIONER

(BY SRI.CHANDRASHEKARA.K.A., ADV. )

AND

1.     THE STATE OF KARNATAKA
       BY THE POLICE OF SRIRAMPURA POLICE STATION
       CHITRADURGA DISTRICT - 572214
       REPT THROUGH
       THE SATE PUBLIC PROSECUTOR
       HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA
       BENGALURU - 560001

2.   TIMMARAJU
     S/O NAGARAJU
     AGED ABOUT 27 YEARS,
     II CROSS, VIDYANAGARA ,HASSAN - 573202
                                  ... RESPONDENTS
(BY SRI.S.RACHAIAH., HCGP., FOR R1
NOTICE TO R2 DISPENSED WITH V/O
DTD:23.1.2018)
                            2




     THIS CRL.P IS FILED U/S 482 CR.P.C PRAYING TO
SET ASIDE THE ORDER DATED 24.04.2017 PASSED BY
THE PRINCIPAL JUDICIAL MAGISTRATE FIRST CLASS,
HOSADURGA IN CR.NO.97/2017 AND CONFIRMED BY
THE I ADDITIONAL DISTRICT AND SESSIONS JUDGE,
CHITRADURGA      IN    CRL.RP.NO.29/2017     DATED
03.08.2017 AND RELEASE THE VEHICLE BEARING
REGISTRATION NO.KA-13-A-9995 IN HIS FAVOUR.

     THIS CRL.P COMING ON FOR ORDERS THIS DAY,
THE COURT MADE THE FOLLOWING:

                        ORDER

Notice to be issued to Respondent No.2 is dispensed with, as he is not a rival claimant before the trial Court or before the revisional Court under Section 457 of Cr.P.C..

2. Heard the learned counsel for the petitioner and the learned HCGP. Perused the records.

3. Respondent No.1-Police have registered a case in Crime No.97/2017 against the petitioner for the offences punishable under Section 93 of the Karnataka Police Act, 1963, Sections 4, 8, 9 & 11 of Karnataka Prevention of Cows Slaughter and Cattle Preventions Act, 1964, under Section 11(1)(A) of Prevention of Cruelty to Animals Act, 1960, Section 192(A), 177 of Indian Motor Vehicle Act, 1988, under Sections 96 to 98 3 of Transportation of Animals Act, 1978, Sections 1 to 4, 125(E) of the Central Motor Vehicles Rules, 2015 and under Section 429 of IPC.

4. It is alleged that the petitioner's vehicle viz., Canter bearing Registration No. KA.13.A.9995 was seized in connection with the said case and the same has been subjected to PF No.50/17 on the file of the Principal JMFC, Hosadurga. It appears the petitioner being the owner of the said vehicle filed an application under Section 457 of Cr.P.C., seeking interim custody of the said vehicle during the pendency of the case in Crime No.97/2017. The learned Magistrate has dismissed the said application mainly on the ground that the said vehicle was involved in Crime No. 170/13, 236/2013 and 483/14 and 23/2015 and 52/2016, 58/2017 of different Police station in connection with different offences. The Investigating Officer produced the FIR before the learned jurisdictional Magistrate in connection with those cases. The learned Magistrate is of the opinion that, if the vehicle is released in favour of the respondent, he may indulge in using the said 4 vehicle for commission of similar offences, therefore, on that ground, the petition came to be rejected. Being aggrieved by the said order, the petitioner has preferred Criminal Petition No.29/2017 on the file of the 1st Additional District and Sessions Judge, Chitradurga. Learned Sessions Judge also came to the same conclusion stating that the revision petitioner has violated the conditions imposed by various courts and used the said vehicle for commission of similar offences.

5. Though I am not differing from the opinion expressed by both the courts below with respect to the conduct of the petitioner, but the fact remains that if the said vehicle is kept either in the custody of the court or in the custody of the Police, keeping open to the natural calamities, by the end of the conclusion of the trial, the vehicle may become useless and it may not be beneficial to the State or to the party. If for any reason in this case, the accused is acquitted and the court orders for release of the vehicle in favour of the petitioner, the property becomes useless by that time and no value can be attached to the said vehicle at that 5 particular point of time. Therefore, in order to avoid such future complexities in the case, if it is released in favour of the petitioner with stringent conditions, it is beneficial not only to the State but also to the petitioner and it would serve the ends of justice.

6. Therefore, in the above facts and circumstances, though there are allegations that the petitioner has used the said vehicle in some other cases also, they are yet to be decided by the court. They are mere allegations at this stage.

7. In the above circumstances, I proceed to pass the following:

ORDER The petition is allowed. Consequently, the application filed by the petitioner under Section 457 of Cr.P.C. before the trial Court is hereby allowed. Consequently, the vehicle bearing Registration No. KA.13.A.9995 which subjected to PF No.50/2017, is ordered to be released to the interim custody of the petitioner on the following conditions:-

i) The jurisdictional Magistrate has to secure the valuation of the said vehicle from the concerned RTO and on such valuation report, the Magistrate has to take a Bank Guarantee from the petitioner.

ii) The petitioner shall furnish Bank Guarantee to the extent of the value of the said vehicle as evaluated by the RTO subject to renewal of the said Bank Guarantee periodically till the disposal of the case.

iii) The petitioner shall also furnish two sureties for the value of the said vehicle to the satisfaction of the trial Court.

iv) The petitioner shall not indulge in using the said vehicle for commission of similar offences in future.

v) The petitioner shall not alienate the said vehicle during the pendency of the said proceedings and he should not make any major changes in the vehicle without the permission of the court.

vi) The petitioner shall also produce the said vehicle as and when required by the trial Court for the purpose of identification and other things.

vii) Before release, the photographs of the vehicle from all the four angles to be secured and preserved in case file.

Sd/-

JUDGE KGR*

Unlock Advanced Research with PRISMAI

Karnataka High Court