Bhimappa S/O. Hanamanta Gopal vs The State Of Karnataka
2022 Latest Caselaw 3694 Kant

                            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.100012 OF 2022

BETWEEN
BHIMAPPA S/O. HANAMANTA GOPAL,
AGE. 72 YEARS, OCC. AGRICULTURE,
R/O. MAMADAPUR-591233,
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 01.12.2021
PASSED IN SPL. CASE NO.870/2019 ON THE FILE OF XII
ADDITIONAL SESSIONS JUDGE BELAGAVI SITTING AT GOKAKA,
INSOFAR AS CONFISCATION OF THE TRACTOR BEARING REG
NO.KA-49/T-4331 AND TRAILERS BEARING REG NO.KA-49/T-4332,
KA-23/TA-1568 AND KA-49/T-5374 UNDER SEC.21 (4A) OF MINES
                               2




AND MINERALS (REGULATION AND DEVELOPMENT) ACT, 1957, IN
THE INTEREST OF JUSTICE.

     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.P14. 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 tractor and

trailer belonging to the appellant. Taking exception to the

confiscation of the said tractor and trailers, the appellant has

filed the present appeal.

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 tractor and trailer 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

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 tractor

and trailer belonging to the appellant having regard to the fact

that the said tractor and trailer were used by the appellant for

transporting the 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 tractor

and trailer is not proved and acquitted the accused for the

aforesaid offences. 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 tractor and trailer

belonging to the appellant with the State.

6. 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 acquitting 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 tractor and trailer

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, 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."

7. 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 held to be arbitrary and

inconsistent with the legal requirements. Accordingly, I

proceed to pass the following:

ORDER

The appeal is allowed.

Consequently, the impugned order dated 01.12.2021 passed by the learned XII Additional District and Sessions Judge, Belagavi, sitting at Gokak, insofar as confiscating the tractor bearing No.KA-49/T-4331 and trailers bearing Nos..KA- 49/T-4332, KA-23/TA-1568 AND KA-49/T-5374 is hereby quashed.

In view of disposal of the matter, pending interlocutory applications, if any, do not survive for consideration and are dismissed accordingly.

Sd/-

JUDGE YAN