Karnataka High Court
Sri.Miyasab S/O Bandagisab Yalagar vs State Of Karnataka on 10 February, 2017
1
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA
KALABURAGI BENCH
DATED THIS THE 10TH DAY OF FEBRUARY, 2017
BEFORE
THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE B.A. PATIL
CRIMINAL PETITION No.200143/2017
Between:
Sri Miyasab
S/o Bandagisab Yalagar
Aged about 30 years, Occ: Business
R/o Devar Hipparagi, Tq. Sindagi
Dist. Vijayapur represented by his
Power of Attorney Holder
Sri Saleem
S/o Bandagisab Yalagar
Aged about 28 years, Occ: Driver
R/o Devarhipparagi, Tq. Sindagi
Dist. Vijayapura
... Petitioner
(By Sri S.S.Mamadapur, Advocate)
And:
State of Karnataka
Through Nelogi Police Station
Represented by its
State Public Prosecutor
Advocate General's Office
High Court Building, Kalabuaragi
... Respondent
(Sri Maqbool Ahmed, HCGP)
2
This Criminal Petition is filed under Section 482 of
Cr.P.C., praying to set aside the order dated 16.01.2017
passed by the learned Principal Sessions Judge,
Kalaburagi in Crl.Rev. Petition No. 211/2016 as well as
the order dated 22/12/2016 passed by the learned Civil
Judge and JMFC, Jewargi in Nelogi Police Station Crime
No. 231/2016 and consequently order for the release of
the vehicle in favour of the petitioner.
This petition coming on for admission this day, the
Court made the following:-
ORDER
Though this matter is listed for admission today, with consent of learned counsels for both the parties, it is taken up for final disposal.
2. This petition has been filed by the petitioner- owner of vehicle bearing temporary registration No.KA- 22/TT-002339/201617 praying to set aside the order dated 16.01.2017 passed by the Principal Sessions Judge, Kalaburagi in Crl.Rev.P.211/2016 and also order dated 22.12.2016 passed by learned Civil Judge and JMFC, Jewargi in Crime No.231/2016 of Nelogi Police Station.
3
3. The facts leading to the case are that the Assistant Executive Engineer, PWD and IWT Sub-Division Jewargi filed a complaint alleging that on 05.12.2016 there was illegal transportation of sand through Narayanpur Road and immediately they went and raided the said vehicles and thereafter they have been seized by the police and in that light a PF was also filed before the learned Magistrate in PF No.79/2016 dated 06.12.2016. The owner of the vehicle filed a petition under Section 457 of Cr.P.C. before the learned Magistrate. The learned Magistrate by order dated 22.12.2016 has rejected the petition. Assailing the said order, petitioner filed a Criminal Revision Petition No.211/2016. The learned Principal Sessions Judge, Kalaburagi after hearing, passed an order dated 16.01.2017 rejecting the petition and confirmed the impugned order. Being aggrieved by the said orders, now the petitioner is before this Court. 4
4. The learned counsel for the petitioner would contend that the petitioner is the owner of the alleged vehicle. The learned Judges without any logic have passed the impugned order by rejecting his prayer. He would further contend that the only ground on which his application was rejected was that the registration of the vehicle was valid up to 21.12.2016 and subsequently it was not renewed. He further contended that the said vehicle is a new vehicle and it was not yet permanently registered. In order to register the said vehicle it has to be taken to the concerned authorities, but as the said vehicle is seized and it is in the custody of the police it was not got renewed. He would further contend that if the said vehicle is kept in the custody of the police it is going to deteriorate and would cause financial loss and hardship to him. He would also contend that he is ready to abide by the conditions to be imposed by this Court and ready to offer the sureties. On these ground she prayed for allowing the petition. 5
5. Per contra, the High Court Government Pleader resisted the petition by supporting the impugned order and prayed to dismiss the petition.
6. It is an admitted fact that the vehicle bearing its Engine No.61G84321942 Chassis No. MAT44-8060- GAG07872 belonging to the petitioner was seized and for having seized the same it was reported to the learned Magistrate in PF No.79/2016 dated 06.12.2016. The said vehicle has been temporary registered under its registration No.KA-22/TT-002339/201617 valid up to 21.12.2016. The only ground on which the request of the petitioner has been turned of is that subsequently after 21.12.2016 neither the said vehicle has been renewed with the temporary registration number nor the permanent registration has been obtained. The reasons assigned by the learned Sessions Judge for rejection of the said application appears to be not just and proper.
6
7. Admittedly, the case was registered on 05.12.2016 and the said vehicle has been seized on the same day and thereafter it is with the custody of police. For the purpose of the permanent registration as well as for renewal of the temporary registration as per the procedure the said vehicle has to be physically produced before the concerned RTO. When the said vehicle is in the custody of the Court, the question of producing the same before the concerned authority is highly impossible. The limited enquiry which has to be made at the time of considering the application under Section 457 is that whether the petitioner is the owner of the vehicle having valid documents to give lawful custody to the rightful owner and whether there is any likelihood of dismantling or changing the identity of the said vehicle. It is well established principle of law that if the said vehicle is allowed to remain at police station without care and subjected to rain and sun, its conditions will be deteriorated. If the said vehicle is 7 kept without using for years till the trial over it is going to devalue and it will also become un-useful in subsequent days. For the purpose of ascertaining to whom the said vehicle belongs and from whose possession it has been seized and to whom it has to be handed over can be done by preparing a detailed panchanama about the said vehicle, by taking the photographs of such vehicle and a bond to produce if required at the time of trial and after taking proper security the said vehicle can be released.
8. The procedure to be followed in such cases has been dealt in detail in a case of SUNDERBHAI AMBALAL DESAI v. STATE OF GUJARAT reported in (2002) 10 SCC 282 at Para 13, which reads as under:
"Mr. Jaspal Singh further submitted that, in any event, the appellant has been acquitted under Section 302 IPC. He submitted that this shows that there was no intention or knowledge to cause death. He submitted that such an acquittal necessarily means that the appellant is held not 8 responsible for the death of the deceased. He submitted that once the appellant has been acquitted under Section 302 of IPC, the presumption under Section 113-B of the Evidence Act stands rebutted"
9. No doubt, the learned HCGP would contend that the said vehicle has not been permanently registered and there is likelihood of changing its identity and the Court will not be having any documents to identify the vehicle. If that being the case a detailed panchanama has to be prepared by mentioning the Chassis Number, Temporary Registration Number and photograph of the said vehicle be taken. Thereafter by taking adequate security that if the said vehicle is released in favour of the owner after identity is established with proper documents with a direction that after the registration of the vehicle with the concerned RTO he has to produce the same before the concerned Court along with the vehicle with its permanent registration number again the said photographs of the said vehicle have to be 9 taken with the consent of the owner that he will not dispute the identify of the said vehicle, in that event it is going to protect the interest of the State as well as the petitioner. If the vehicle is not released it will cause hardship to the petitioner and it is also going to lose its value and may deteriorate. Keeping in view the above said facts and circumstances of the case, I am of the considered view that these aspects are not been kept into by the Court below and has rejected the petition. As such, there is a glaring illegality in the order, which needs to be interfered with by modifying the order to the extent of the vehicle belonging to the petitioner bearing its temporary registration No. KA-22/TT- 002339/201617.
10. The petition is allowed only in respect of petitioner. The vehicle bearing registration No. KA- 22/TT-002339/201617 is ordered to be released in favour of the petitioner with following conditions: 10
1) The petitioner-owner of the vehicle has to execute a personal bond for a sum of Rs.10,00,000/- (Rupees: Ten Lakhs Only) with two solvent sureties for the like sum.
2) He should give an undertaking that after the release he will take the vehicle for permanent registration and he will get it registered within one month from such date and thereafter he will produce the said vehicle before the jurisdictional Court along with permanent R.C. Book and the photographs taken from all angles pertaining to the said vehicle.
3) He should also undertake that he will not change the identity of the said vehicle and will also not change the colour and the other 11 parts of the said vehicle till the trial is concluded.
4) He must also undertake that he will produce the vehicle as and when it is required before the Court during the trial for the purpose of identity.
5) He must also give an undertaking that in the event of disobeying any one of the conditions he will indemnify the State a sum of Rs.10,00,000/-.
6) The trial Court after compliance of the above conditions has to release the vehicle in favour of the owner-petitioner.
Sd/-
JUDGE SBS* Ct: MHS