Karnataka High Court
State Of Karnataka vs K. Mohammad Haneef on 31 May, 2021
Author: S Vishwajith Shetty
Bench: S Vishwajith Shetty
1
Crl.P.No.611/2021
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU
DATED THIS THE 31ST DAY OF MAY, 2021
BEFORE
THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE S VISHWAJITH SHETTY
CRIMINAL PETITION No.611 OF 2021
BETWEEN:
State of Karnataka
Senior Mines and Geology Department,
Represented by D.K. Mangaluru,
Now Represented by the
State Public Prosecutor,
High Court Building,
Bengaluru-560 001. ...Petitioner
(By Sri. R.D. Renukaradhya , HCGP)
AND:
K. Mohammad Haneef
S/o K.M. Abbas,
Aged 46 years,
Door No.1-91,
Century Transport,
Uliyagoli Post, Kaup,
Udupi District-576 101 ... Respondent
(Respondent served and unrepresented)
This Criminal Petition is filed under Section 482 of
Cr.P.C. praying this Court to set aside the order dated
13.02.2020, passed by the Principal District and Sessions
2
Crl.P.No.611/2021
Judge, D.K. Mangaluru in Crl.R.P.No.180/2019, confirming
the order dated 01.07.2019, passed by the Civil Judge and
JMFC, Moodabidri in P.C. No.24/2019 for the offences
punishable under Sections 4(1) and Section 9 and 21(1),
23C(1)(E)(G) and Section 24(1)(e) of MMRD Act and etc.,
This Criminal Petition coming on for Admission this
day, the Court made the following:
ORDER
The State has filed this petition under Section 482 of Cr.P.C. challenging the order dated 01.07.2019 passed by the Civil Judge and J.M.F.C., Moodabidri in P.C. No.24/2019 and order dated 13.02.2020 passed by the Principal District and Sessions Judge, Dakshina Kannada, Mangaluru in Crl.R.P.No.180/2019.
2. The brief facts of the case as revealed are:
The case in P.C.No.24/2019 came to be registered before the Court of Civil Judge and J.M.F.C., Moodabidri for the offences punishable under Section 4(1) and Sections 9 and 21(1), 23C(1)(E)(G) and Section 24(1)(e) of Mines and 3 Crl.P.No.611/2021 Mineral Regulation of Development Act and a Tipper Lorry bearing No.KA-20B-0997 was seized by the Investigating Officer and same was reported before the learned Magistrate. Subsequently, an application was filed by the respondent herein seeking interim custody of the said vehicle under Section 457 of Cr.P.C. The state has filed its objection for the said application and in paragraph No.9 of the statement of objections it is specifically contended that in the event the subject vehicle is released to the interim custody of the applicant, a condition is required to be imposed on him for furnishing of Bank guarantee of an amount equal to double the value of the vehicle. However, the Trial Court has allowed the application under Section 457 of Cr.P.C. without imposing such a condition which is the mandatory requirement of law under Rule 43(8) of the Karnataka Minor Minerals Concession Rules, 1994 (herein after referred to as 'the Rules of 1994' for short). Being aggrieved by the order passed by the Trial Court, the State had preferred Crl.R.P.No.180/2019 which was also dismissed by the 4 Crl.P.No.611/2021 Revisional Court by order dated 13.02.2020. Challenging the said two orders the State has preferred this petition.
3. The respondent who is served in this matter has remained un-represented.
4. Learned HCGP appearing for the petitioner submits that compliance of the requirement of Rule 43(8) of the Rules of 1994 is a mandatory requirement and therefore, the Trial Court has erred in allowing the application filed under Section 457 of Cr.P.C. granting interim custody of the vehicle without imposing a condition directing the applicant/respondent to furnish a Bank guarantee. He submits that it is settled principle of law that whenever a statute requires such a condition to be imposed by the Courts, the Courts are duty bound to comply the same.
5. Rule 43(8) of the Rules, 1994 reads as follows:
No release of the vehicle which shall however not include the minor mineral so seized shall be made unless 5 Crl.P.No.611/2021 there is an execution by the owner thereof, of security in the form of a renewable Bank Guarantee, of an amount equal to double the value of such vehicle, before the Competent Court having jurisdiction to try the offence on account of which the seizure has been made:
From a bare reading of the said provision of law, it is very clear that compliance of the same is mandatory requirement. Whenever a statute provides for imposing certain condition while considering the application for interim custody of the vehicle or other articles seized during the course of the investigation, the Courts are required to comply the same and it is only under exceptional circumstances for the reasons to be recorded compliance of such a requirement could be dispensed by the Court. In the case on hand, there is absolutely no application of mind by the Courts below to the aforesaid provision of law. Though the requirement of law is for imposing the condition directing the applicant under 6 Crl.P.No.611/2021 Section 457 of Cr.P.C to furnish a Bank guarantee for an amount double the value of the vehicle, the Courts below have lost sight of this aspect of the matter and there is absolutely no reasons recorded by the Trial Court or by the Revisional Court as to why compliance of Rule 43(8) of Rule 1994 is not required in the present case. Under the circumstances, it is just and necessary to modify the order dated 01.07.2019 passed by the Court of Civil Judge and J.M.F.C., Moodabidri in P.C.No.24/19 (C.C.No.526/2019) by imposing the following condition on the applicant in compliance of Rule 43(8) of the Rules of 1994 which would be read as condition No.4 of the said order.
Condition No.4 :- The respondent/applicant shall execute a security in the form of renewable Bank guarantee of an amount equal to double the value of the vehicle of which interim custody is sought for.7
Crl.P.No.611/2021
6. On receipt of a copy of this order, the trial court shall forthwith summon the applicant and ensure compliance of the aforesaid condition No.4.
Accordingly, Criminal Petition is partly allowed.
Sd/-
JUDGE rv