Karnataka High Court

Smt. Rangamma vs State Of Karnataka on 30 July, 2024

Author: M.Nagaprasanna

Bench: M.Nagaprasanna

                                             -1-
                                                         NC: 2024:KHC:30022
                                                     CRL.P No. 5416 of 2024




                     IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU

                           DATED THIS THE 30TH DAY OF JULY, 2024

                                          BEFORE
                          THE HON'BLE MR JUSTICE M.NAGAPRASANNA
                            CRIMINAL PETITION NO. 5416 OF 2024
                   BETWEEN:

                   SMT. RANGAMMA
                   W/O VEERANNA
                   AGED ABOUT 57 YEARS
                   RC OWNER OF MAHINDRA 415
                   DI TRACTOR AND TRAILER
                   BEARING REGISTRATION
                   NO.KA-16-TB-8123 AND KA-16-TC-0180
                   RESIDENT OF BIDARAKERE VILLAGE
                   HIRIYUR TALUK
                   CHITRADURGA DISTRICT - 577 501.

                   REPRESENTED BY HER SPA HOLDER
                   MANJUNATH N.,
                   S/O NAGARAJAPPA
Digitally signed   AGED ABOUT 36 YEARS
by NAGAVENI
Location: HIGH     RESIDENT OF BIDARAKERE VILLAGE
COURT OF
KARNATAKA          HIRIYUR TALUK
                   CHITRADURGA DISTRICT - 577 501.
                                                              ...PETITIONER
                   (BY SRI S.SHEHINSHA ALI, ADVOCATE)

                   AND:

                   STATE OF KARNATAKA
                   BY ABBINAHOLE POLICE STATION
                   REPRESENTED BY SPP,
                   HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA
                              -2-
                                            NC: 2024:KHC:30022
                                        CRL.P No. 5416 of 2024




BENGALURU - 560 001.
                                                ...RESPONDENT
(BY SRI. JAGADEESHA B. N., ADDL. SPP)

     THIS CRL.P IS FILED U/S.482 OF THE CR.P.C PRAYING
TO SET ASIDE THE ORDER DATED 02.01.2024 PASSED BY THE
PRINCIPAL DISTRICT AND SESSIONS JUDGE, CHITRADURGA
IN CRL.RP.NO.133/2023 AND CONSEQUENTLY ALLOW THE
APPLICATION FILED U/S 457 OF CR.P.C. AND PLEASED TO
DIRECT THE RESPONDENT POLICE TO RELEASE THE SEIZED
VEHICLES     MAHINDRA      415     DI    TRACTOR     BEARING
REGISTRATION NO.KA-16-TB-8123 AND TRAILOR BEARING
REG. NO.A-16-TC-0180 IN CR.NO.124/2023 REGISTERED AT
ABBINAHOLE POLICE STATION, CHITRADURGA DISTRICT WITH
ITS PF.NO.86/2023 DATED 28.07.2023.

     THIS PETITION, COMING ON FOR ADMISSION, THIS DAY,
ORDER WAS MADE THEREIN AS UNDER:



CORAM:     HON'BLE MR JUSTICE M.NAGAPRASANNA


                        ORAL ORDER

The petitioner is before this Court calling in question an

order dated 28.07.2023, passed on an application filed under

Section 457 of the Cr.P.C., in Crime No.124/2023, by the

Additional Civil Judge and JMFC, Hiriyur, Chitradurga, seeking

release of a vehicle - PF No.86/2023 and the order dated

NC: 2024:KHC:30022

02.01.2024, passed in Crl.R.P.No.133/2023, by the Principal

District and Sessions Judge at Chitradurga, for the offences

under Sections 4(a) and 21(1) of the Mines and Minerals

(Regulation and Development) Act, 1957 and Sections 379 of

the IPC.

2. Heard Sri S. Shehinsha Ali, learned counsel for the

petitioner and Sri B.N.Jagadeesh, learned Additional State

Public Prosecutor for the respondent.

3. Facts in brief, germane, are as follows:

The case of the prosecution is that, it is alleged that the

petitioner being the owner of the vehicle - Mahindra 415 DI

Tractor bearing No.KA-16-TB-8123 and Trailor bearing No.KA-

16-TC-0180 was loading sand, without any license from

Vedavathi river naala situated at Bidarakere Village, Hiriyur

Tank. Respondent - police on credible information, raided at

the spot and seized the said vehicle on 28.07.2023.

4. Since the vehicle has been seized, the petitioner

prefers an application under Section 457 of Cr.P.C., before the

learned Magistrate, in Crime No.124/2023, which comes to be

NC: 2024:KHC:30022

dismissed by an order dated 09.11.2023, which is also

confirmed by the Sessions Court in Crl.R.P.No.133/2023, by its

order dated 02.01.2024. It is these orders, that has driven the

petitioner to this Court in the subject petition.

5. Learned counsel appearing for the petitioner would

submit that the reasons rendered for rejection by the learned

Magistrate and the Sessions Judge in their respective orders,

on the face of them are erroneous. The learned Magistrate has

gone into the issue of jurisdiction, whereas the Sessions Court

has affirmed the same, without considering the present legal

position of law. It is his submission that if the vehicle is kept in

open yard, the value of the vehicle gets deteriorated and the

value gets depreciated.

6. The learned Additional State Public Prosecutor

would refute the submission and contends that the vehicle

should not be released.

7. I have given my anxious consideration to the

contentions of respective learned counsel and have perused the

material on record.

NC: 2024:KHC:30022

8. The afore-narrated facts are not in dispute. The

vehicle being seized as PF No.86/2023 and registration of a

crime in Crime No.124/2023 are all a matter of record. The

issue in the lis need not detain this Court for long or delve deep

into the matter as this Court in an identical matter in

Crl.P.No.1933/2024 disposed on 27.06.2024, has held as

follows:

"A perusal at the order passed by the learned Magistrate rejecting the application, reads as follows:

"REASONS

"6. Point No.1: The Abbinahole Police have registered a case against accused in Cr.No. 178/2023 for the offences punishable U/Sec.4-(1A), 21(4) of MINES AND MINERALS (DEVELOPMENT AND REGULATION) ACT, 1957 and r/w sec.379 of IPC and seized the tractor and trailer.

7. In the present case, the applicant claimed to be the owner lorry under release application has filed this application for release of same stating that he is in need of the said vehicle for his daily work and in order to eke his livelihood. The said vehicle is placed in the open yard of the Police Station, it becomes rusted and in future it will not work properly and the applicant would suffer irreparable loss. The applicant is ready to abide any conditions imposed by this court.

8. The applicant along with the application has produced the bunch of documents like digital Tax receipt, permit, certificate of fitness, copy of insurance pertaining to lorry bearing Reg. No.KA-35-B-9325 and copy of Aadhaar card

9. Now, this court has to see whether this court has jurisdiction to pass an order for release of vehicles which

NC: 2024:KHC:30022

is seized under Special Act i.e.. Karnataka Minor Mineral Concession Amendment Act 1994 where the alleged offences are triable by Special Court.

10. The Karnataka Minor Mineral Concession Amendment Rules 1994 Act, does not provide a clear provision with respect to which court is empowered to release of vehicles. Therefore, in Vivek V/s. State of Karnataka, dated 15.07.2016 by the Hon'ble High Court held that, the committal court may release the vehicle. On 16.11.2017, there are major amendments to the Karnataka Minor Mineral Concession Amendment Rules 1994 wherein the power of release of vehicle was vested with Special Court which is having jurisdiction to try the offence. The provisions read as follows:

11. Amendment of Rule 43: In Rule 43 of the said rules, for sub-rules(5), (6). (7) and (8), the following shall be substituted namely, "(5)..........

(6).........

(7) Upon seizure as provided under sub rule (6) it shall be necessary for the officer sub-rule(6) to make a report within a reasonable period of such seizure to the competent Court having jurisdiction to try the offence on account of which seizure has been made.

Under Section 30(b) of the Act Special Court is made as competent Court in order to deal with the release of vehicle and report has to be submitted to the Court having jurisdiction to try the offence and the Special Court only to exercise the powers of release the vehicle in terms of Rule 43(7).

(8) Provided that where a report has been made to the Competent Court under sub-rule(7) the seized vehicle shall not be released except under the orders of such court.

12) Herein this case, the seized vehicles under release application is involved in commission of the offences attracted with the provisions of MINES AND MINERAL (DEVELOPMENT AND REGULATION) ACT, 1957. Under the light of power to release the vehicle was vested with the special court established having jurisdiction to try

NC: 2024:KHC:30022

the offences. Adhering to the same, the point no.1 is answered Negative."

In the considered view of the Court, the reason so rendered to reject the application is blatantly contrary to law. The issue in the lis need not detain this Court for long or delve deep into the matter as a co-ordinate bench of this Court considering the issue of jurisdiction in the identical matter in Crl.P.No.137/2018, disposed on 27.02.2018 has held as follows:

"5. Learned counsel appearing for the applicant - petitioner made the submission that when the application was made before the JMFC 1st Court, Davangere, the trial Court referring to Section 6E of the Essential Commodities Act opined that the Court is not having any jurisdiction to allow the petition and to release the vehicle to the applicant. Hence the said application filed under Section 457 Cr.P.C. seeking interim custody of the vehicle came to be rejected.

6. Learned counsel appearing for the applicant - petitioner herein also made the submission that the observation made by the Court below that the Court is not having jurisdiction to release the vehicle in view of Section 6E of the amended provisions of the Essential Commodities Act, is not correct and it is not in accordance with law. In this connection, learned counsel relied upon the decision of the Hon'ble Supreme Court reported in AIR 1990 SC 1849 rendered in the case of STATE OF M.P. AND OTHERS Appellants v. RAMESHWAR RATHOD Respondent. Learned counsel for the petitioner draws the attention of the Court to paragraph No.6 of the said decision. Hence submitted to allow the petition by setting aside the order of the JMFC Court.

7. Learned High Court Pleader opposed the petition contending that the food stuffs which were loaded in the said vehicle were under confiscation and the Deputy Commissioner has to consider those aspects. Therefore at this stage, it is not proper for releasing the vehicle into the custody of the applicant. Hence learned High Court Government Pleader made the submission to reject the petition.

NC: 2024:KHC:30022

8. I have perused the grounds urged in the petition and also the order of the learned JMFC Court so also the decision of the Hon'ble Supreme Court relied upon by the learned counsel for the petitioner herein. In the decision of the Hon'ble Supreme Court, it is observed that the Court having jurisdiction in respect of criminal matters can invoke the jurisdiction for the release of the said vehicle and the power cannot be taken away. Therefore in view of the said decision and the principle enunciated in the said decision, the order of the learned JMFC Court is not correct and it is not in accordance with law."

This Court following the judgments of the coordinate benches rendered earlier, in Crl.P.No.4492/2022 disposed on 17.06.2022, has held as follows:

"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

NC: 2024:KHC:30022

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."

- 10 -

NC: 2024:KHC:30022

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."

In the light of the issue standing answered by the coordinate bench of this Court which is subsequently followed by this Court, the reason so rendered by the concerned Court to reject the application is blatantly contrary to law.

In the light the facts obtaining in the case at hand and

the afore-quoted order, which covers the issue on all its fours,

the petition deserve to succeed.

9. For the aforesaid reasons, the following:

ORDER

a. The criminal petition is allowed.

b. The order dated 28.07.2023 passed by the Additional

Civil Judge and JMFC, Hiriyur, on the application in

Crime No.124/2023 and the order dated 02.01.2024,

passed by the Principal District and Sessions Judge at

Chitradurga, in Crl.R.P.No.133/2023, stand quashed.

c. The application filed under Section 457 the Cr.P.C.

seeking release of PF No.86/2023 - Mahindra 415 DI

tractor bearing No.KA-16-TB-8123 and trailor bearing

- 11 -

NC: 2024:KHC:30022

No.KA-16-TC-0180 is allowed. Only the said vehicle

be released to the petitioner herein on proper

identification and not the sand that was filled in the

vehicle, subject to the following conditions:

a. 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.