State Of Karnataka By vs Sanjeevaiah
2021 Latest Caselaw 1123 Kant

                                          CRL.A.No.837/2018


                            1


IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU

      DATED THIS THE 18th DAY OF JANUARY 2021

                       BEFORE

      THE HON'BLE MRS. JUSTICE K.S.MUDAGAL

           CRIMINAL APPEAL NO.837 OF 2018
BETWEEN:

STATE OF KARNATAKA BY
KYATHSANDRA POLICE
REPRESENTED BY THE
STATE PUBLIC PROSECUTOR
HIGH COURT BUILDING
BENGALURU - 560 001                   ... APPELLANT

(BY SRI.H.R.SHOWRI, HCGP)

AND

SANJEEVAIAH
S/O CHIKKARANGAIAH
AGED ABOUT 45 YEARS
DRIVER OF TRACTOR BEARING
REG:NO.KA05 AA-7569 AND
TRAILER BEARING REG.NO.KA-05
C-6049, R/O AREGUJJANAHALLI VILLAGE
OORDIGERE HOBLI
TUMAKURU TALUK - 572 101         ... RESPONDENT

(RESPONDENT SERVED AND UNREPRESENTED)

      THIS CRIMINAL APPEAL IS FILED UNDER SECTION 454
CR.P.C PRAYING TO MODIFY THAT PORTION OF THE ORDER
DATED 18/19.01.2018 PASSED IN SPECIAL CASE NO.302/2016
INSO FAR AS RELEASING THE CUSTODY OF THE TRACTOR
BEARING REGISTRATION NO.KA-05 AA 7569 ATTACHED TO THE
TRAILER BEARING REGISTRATION NO.KA-05 C-6049 TO ITS RC
                                             CRL.A.No.837/2018


                            2


OWNER, MAKING      THE    ORDER   OF   INTERIM   CUSTODY
ABSOLUTE.

      THIS CRIMINAL APPEAL COMING ON FOR ADMISSION
THIS DAY, THE COURT DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING:

                         JUDGMENT

Heard learned HCGP.

This appeal is filed challenging the order dated

18.01.2018 in Spl.Case No.302/2016 passed by the

Principal Sessions/Special Judge, Tumkur for trial of

the offences under Mines and Minerals (Development &

Regulation) Act, 1957 ('the MMDR Act' for short).

2. Accused Nos.1 and 2 were prosecuted in

Spl.Case No.302/2016 on the file of the Principal

Sessions and Special Judge, Tumkur for the offences

punishable under Section 379 of IPC and Section 4(1A)

read with Section 21 of the MMDR Act on the basis of

the charge sheet filed by Kyatasandra Police in Crime

No.15/2016.

CRL.A.No.837/2018

3. Accused No.1 was the registered owner of

the tractor trailer bearing No.KA-05 AA 7569/6049.

Accused No.2 was said to be the driver of the said

vehicle. It was alleged that on 27.01.2015 at 9.00 a.m

the accused were transporting the sand stolen by them

from Government Nala situated in Sy.No.56/4B of

Aregujjanahalli village. The vehicle and the sand were

allegedly seized by the Police squad. When the matter

was pending before the trial Court, accused No.1 died.

Therefore, case against him abated.

4. Learned Special Judge tried accused No.2

and by the order dated 18.01.2018 convicted him for

the offences punishable under Section 379 of IPC and

4(1A) read with Section 21 of the MMDR Act and

sentenced him to pay fine of Rs.10,000/- for the offence

under Section 379 of IPC, to rigorous imprisonment for

a period of six months with fine of Rs.15,000/- for the CRL.A.No.837/2018

offence under Section 4(1A) read with Section 21 of the

MMDR Act with default sentence.

5. When the matter was pending for trial, the

tractor and trailer allegedly used in commission of the

offence was released to the interim custody of accused

No.1. The trial Court despite convicting accused No.2

for the aforesaid offences by impugned order made the

order releasing interim custody of the vehicle absolute.

Aggrieved by the order granting absolute custody to the

RC owner, the above appeal is preferred.

6. Accused No.2 challenged the order of

conviction and sentence passed against him, before this

Court in Crl.A.No.200/2018. The records of

Crl.A.No.200/2018 are placed by the registry. They

show that this Court on 21.10.2019 partly allowed

Crl.A.No.200/2018 reversed the order of conviction and

sentence of the second accused for the offence under

Section 4(1A) read with Section 21 of the MMDR Act and CRL.A.No.837/2018

confirmed the order of conviction and sentence for the

offence under Section 379 of IPC.

7. The property used for transportation of the

minor mineral becomes liable for confiscation by virtue

of Rule 43(9) of the Karnataka Minor Mineral

Concession Rules, 1994. The said rules are formulated

exercising the powers conferred by the State

Government under Section 23(c) of the MMDR Act.

Under those rules, the property is liable for confiscation

only in case of the prosecution for the offence under

Section 4(1)(A)read with Section 21 of the MMDR Act.

8. In the case on hand, since the second

accused was acquitted of the charge for the offence

under Section 4(1)(A)read with Section 21 of the MMDR

Act, the said rules become inapplicable. When the

property was seized in the case involving the offence

under Section 379 of IPC, the provisions of Sections

451, 452 and 457 of Cr.P.C. become relevant.

CRL.A.No.837/2018

According to those provisions, the property can be

released to the owner or to a person from whose custody

the property was seized. In the case on hand,

admittedly the first accused was the registered owner of

the vehicle and the vehicle was seized from his custody.

9. Having regard to the subsequent event of

acquittal of accused No.2 and the reasons stated supra,

the impugned order granting absolute custody of the

property to accused No.1 does not call for any

interference of this Court. Therefore the appeal is

dismissed. In view of dismissal of the appeal,

IA No.1/2018 stood disposed of.

Sd/-

JUDGE Akc