Sunil G R vs State Of Karnataka
2022 Latest Caselaw 9062 Kant

                               1



      IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU

          DATED THIS THE 17TH DAY OF JUNE, 2022

                              BEFORE

        THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE M. NAGAPRASANNA

             CRIMINAL PETITION No.4492/2022

BETWEEN

MR. SUNIL G.R.,
S/O RAMAKRISHNAPPA,
AGED ABOUT 29 YEARS,
R/AT REDDYGOLLAVARAHALLI VILLAGE,
KASABA HOBLI - 562 101,
CHIKKABALLAPURA TALUK AND DISTRICT.
                                              ... PETITIONER

[BY SRI.JAGADISH J.R., ADVOCATE]


AND

STATE OF KARNATAKA,
BY STATION HOUSE OFFICER/
SUB INSPECTOR OF POLICE,
PERESANDRA P.S.,
PERESANDRA - 562 104.
REPRESENTED BY
GOVERNMENT ADVOCATE/S.P.P.,
HIGH COURT BUILDING,
BENGALURU - 560 001.
                                          ... RESPONDENT

[BY SRI.K.S.ABHIJITH, HCGP]
                                2



      THIS CRIMINAL PETITION IS FILED UNDER SECTION 482 OF
CR.P.C. PRAYING TO SET ASIDE THE FINAL ORDER DATED
20.04.2022 PASSED IN CRL.RP.NO.8/2022 PASSED BY THE III
ADDL. DISTRICT AND SESSIONS JUDGE, CHIKKABALLAPURA AND
CONSEQUENTLY SET ASIDE THE ORDER DATED 28.02.2022
PASSED IN CR.NO.6/2022 BY THE I ADDL. SENIOR CIVIL JUDGE
AND J.M.F.C COURT, CHIKKABALLAPURA AND THEREBY ALLOW
THE APPLICATION FILED BY THE PETITIONER U/S 451,457 OF THE
CODE OF CRIMINAL PROCEDURE.

     THIS CRIMINAL PETITION COMING ON FOR ADMISSION, THIS
DAY, THE COURT MADE THE FOLLOWING:

                              ORDER

Learned counsel appearing for the petitioner submits that

the issue in the lis stands covered by the judgment rendered by

the Co-ordinate Bench of this Court in Crl.P.No.100628/2022

dated 21.03.2022, wherein this Court, has held as follows:

"3. The learned High Court Government Pleader appearing for the respondent-State submits that the petitoiner is not entitled for release of the vehicle in view of the bar contained in Section 6E of the Act. Hence, the learned Magistrate has rightly passed the impugned order and the same does not warrant any interference.

4. I have considered the submissions made by the learned counsel for the parties.

5. It is not disputed that the vehicle belonging to the petitioner was seized when the rice meant for public distribution was being transported unauthorisedly which is in contravention of the provisions contained in the Act. The co-ordinate Bench of this Court in Criminal Petition No.137/2018 following the decision of the Hon'ble Apex Court in the case of State of M.P. and Others Vs. Rameshwar Rathod reported in AIR 1990 SC 1849, has held that the criminal court having jurisdiction can exercise the power for release of the vehicle which was involved in commission of the offence under the provisions of the Act. In view of the same, the impugned order passed by the learned Magistrate requires to be set aside."

2. Learned counsel would also take this Court through

the order passed in Crl.P.No.671/2010 dated 21.10.2013,

wherein the Co-ordinate Bench of this Court, holds as follows:

"4. The ownership of the vehicle is not in dispute. The only ground urged by the State is that the vehicle seized under the provisions of Essential Commodities Act is to be released only by the

District Commissioner who is authorized officer and not the jurisdictional Magistrate. This issue came up for consideration before the Apex Court in AIR 1990 SC 1849, wherein, it is held as under:-

"Normally under the Criminal Procedure Code, the Criminal Courts of the country have the jurisdiction and the ouster of the ordinary criminal court in respect of a crime can only be inferred if that is the irresistible conclusion flowing from necessary implication of the new Act. In view of the language used in Ss.6A and 7 of the Essential Commodities Act and in the context in which this language has been used, the inference that arises is that the criminal Court retains jurisdiction and its jurisdiction is not completely ousted"

5. Both the Courts below by following the law declared by the Apex Court have passed the impugned orders. I find no justifiable ground to interfere with the impugned orders. Accordingly, the petition is hereby dismissed."

3. In the light of the orders so passed by the

Co-ordinate Bench of this Court as quoted supra, the petitioner

is entitled to succeed.

4. For the aforesaid reasons, the following:

ORDER

The Criminal Petition is allowed. The order dated

20.04.2022 passed by the III Additional District and Sessions

Judge, Chikkaballapura on the application filed by the petitioner

under Sections 451 and 457 of the Cr.P.C. is hereby set aside.

The said application under Sections 451 and 457 of the Cr.P.C.

is allowed and the vehicle bearing Registration No.KA-40-B-1633

and vehicle bearing Registration No.KA-40-B-0083, and not the

cylinders, are to be released into the interim custody of the

petitioner herein, subject to the following conditions:

i. Petitioner shall execute an indemnity bond for a sum of

Rs.4,00,000/- (Rupees Four Lakhs only) i.e., the value

estimated under the PF so also furnish one surety for the said

amount to the satisfaction of the concerned Magistrate Court.

ii. Petitioner shall not change colour and number of the said

vehicles.

iii. The colour photograph of the said vehicle is to be taken from

different angles and they should be produced before the

concerned JMFC Court.

iv. The applicant-petitioner shall not transfer the vehicles in any

manner in favour of anybody till conclusion of the proceedings.

v. The petitioner shall produce the vehicles before the confiscation

authority or before the JMFC Court as and when directed.

Sd/-

JUDGE

SJK