Karnataka High Court
Rangappa S/O Kallappa Kichadi vs The State Of Karnataka on 4 March, 2022
Author: Hemant Chandangoudar
Bench: Hemant Chandangoudar
1
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA
DHARWAD BENCH
DATED THIS THE 4TH DAY OF MARCH 2022
BEFORE
THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE HEMANT CHANDANGOUDAR
CRIMINAL APPEAL NO.100011 OF 2022
BETWEEN
RANGAPPA S/O. KALLAPPA KICHADI
AGE. 45 YEARS, OCC. AGRICULTURE,
R/O. UPPARATTI-591307,
TQ. GOKAK, DIST. BELAGAVI.
...APPELLANT
(BY SRI. SHRIHARSH A NEELOPANT, ADVOCATE)
AND
THE STATE OF KARNATAKA
REPRESENTED BY PSI
GOKAK RURAL POLICE STATION, GOKAK,
THROUGH STATE PUBLIC PROSECUTOR,
HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA,
DHARWAD BENCH, DHARWAD
...RESPONDENT
(BY SRI. RAMESH CHIGARI, HCGP)
THIS CRIMINAL APPEAL IS FILED U/SEC. 454 OF CR.P.C.
SEEKING TO SET ASIDE THE IMPUGNED ORDER DATED 30.11.2021
PASSED IN SPL. CASE NO.32/2018 ON THE FILE OF XII
ADDITIONAL SESSIONS JUDGE BELAGAVI SITTING AT GOKAKA,
INSOFAR AS CONFISCATION OF THE VEHICLE BEARING REG
NO.KA-30/7143 UNDER SEC.21 (4A) OF MINES AND MINERALS
(REGULATION AND DEVELOPMENT) ACT, 1957, IN THE INTEREST
OF JUSTICE.
2
THIS APPEAL COMING ON FOR ADMISSION, THIS DAY, THE
COURT DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING:
JUDGMENT
The respondent filed a complaint under section 200 of Cr.P.C., for the offences punishable under section 21 read with 4(1), 4(1A) of Mines and Minerals (Regulation and Development) Act, 1957 (for short "MMRD Act") read with Rule 44 of KMCC Rules and Section 379 of IPC. After committal of the case, the learned sessions judge took cognizance of the offences and issued summons to the appellant. The prosecution in order to prove its case, examined six witnesses as PW1 and PW6 and exhibited documents as Ex.P1 to Ex.P9. The appellant herein did not adduce any evidence. After recording of statement of the accused under Section 313 of Cr.P.C., and hearing the arguments, the learned Sessions Judge, acquitted the accused for the offences alleged against him. However, the learned Sessions Judge acting under Section 21(4A) of the MMRD Act read with section 452 of Cr.P.C., confiscated the truck belonging to the appellant. Taking exception to the confiscation of the said truck, the appellant has filed the present appeal. 3
2. Learned counsel for the appellant would submit that the learned Sessions Judge, after having acquitted the accused for the aforesaid offences, without authority of law has confiscated the truck belonging to the appellant with the State under section 21(4A) of the MMRD Act read with section 452 of Cr.P.C. In support of his arguments, the learned counsel for the appellant has placed his reliance on the decision of the Hon'ble Apex Court in the case of Abdul Vahab v. State of Madhya Pradesh in Criminal Appeal No.340/2022 (@ SLP (Crl.)No.8964 of 2019).
3. On the other hand, learned HCGP appearing for the respondent-state would justify the confiscation of truck belonging to the appellant having regard to the fact that the said truck was used by the appellant for transporting sand illegally.
4. I have examined the submissions made by the learned counsel for the parties.
5. The learned Sessions Judge after conducting full- fledged trial held that the seizure of the sand in the lorry is not proved and acquitted the accused for the aforesaid offences. 4 However, acting under section 21(4A) of the MMRD Act read with section 452 of Cr.P.C., the learned Sessions Judge ordered for confiscation of truck belonging to the appellant with the State. Section 21(4A) of the Act specifies that any mineral, tool, equipment, vehicle or any other thing seized under sub-section (4), shall be liable to be confiscated by an order of the court competent to take cognizance of the offence under sub-section (1) and shall be disposed of in accordance with the directions of such court. However, the said provision does not specify upon acquittal the accused of the aforesaid offences, the learned Sessions Judge can invoke section 21(4A) of the MMRD Act so as to confiscate the vehicle belonging to the appellant. Learned Sessions Judge having acquitted the accused-appellant for the aforesaid offences, without authority of law has confiscated the truck belonging to the appellant with the State, which is contrary to section 21(4A) of the Act. Further, in the case of Abdul Vahab (supra) the Hon'ble Apex Court at para 21 has laid held as under:
"21. ....... The confiscation of the appellant's truck when he is acquitted in the Criminal prosecution, 5 amounts to arbitrary deprivation of his property and violates the right guaranteed to each person under Article 300A. Therefore, the circumstances here are compelling to conclude that the District Magistrate's order of Confiscation (ignoring the Trial Court's judgment of acquittal), is not only arbitrary but also inconsistent with the legal requirements."
6. In view of the decision rendered by the Hon'ble Apex Court in the judgment cited supra, the order passed by the learned sessions judge is arbitrary and inconsistent with the legal requirements. Accordingly, I proceed to pass the following:
ORDER The appeal is allowed.
Consequently, the impugned order dated 30.11.2011 passed by the learned XII Additional District and Sessions Judge, Belagavi, sitting at Gokak, insofar it relates to confiscating the truck belonging to the appellant bearing registration No.KA-30/7143 is hereby quashed.6
In view of disposal of the matter, pending interlocutory applications, if any, do not survive for consideration and are dismissed accordingly.
Sd/-
JUDGE YAN