Amaranatha Reddy vs State

K.N. Phaneendra, J.—Learned High Court Government Pleader is directed to take notice for the respondent-State.

Heard the learned counsel for the petitioner and the learned High Court Government Pleader for the respondent-State.

The petitioner has approached this Court seeking quashing of the Order dated 2.9.2014 passed by the Civil Judge and JMFC, Bagepalli in CC No. 204/2014, wherein the learned Judge has rejected the application filed by the petitioner u/s. 457 of Cr. PC for release of the vehicle Tractor and Trailor bearing registration No. KA-40/TA-2059 and KA-40/TA-2060 to his interim custody. The said Order was confirmed by the Principal District and Sessions Judge, Chikkaballapur in Crl. Revision Petition No. 145/2014 vide Order dated 25.9.2014.

It is an undisputed fact that as observed in the Order of the learned Magistrate, Pathapalya Police have registered a case in Crime No. 204/2014 in connection with the transport of sand by the petitioner and in that connection the Police have seized the Tractor and Trailor belonging to the petitioner bearing its Registration No. KA-40/TA-2059 and KA-40/TA-2060 and registered a case for the offence punishable under Section 379 of IPC read with Section 4, 4(1A) and Section 21 of the Karnataka Minor Minerals Development and Regulation Act, 1957 and seized the said Tractor and Trailor under PF No. 9/2014. The learned Trial Judge has also observed in his Order that the applicant has produced the Certificate of Registration, Xerox copy of the Insurance policy, Xerox copy of the Voters ID and Voters list and holds that these documents clearly establish that the applicant is the owner of the seized vehicle in question, but he refuses to grant interim custody of the vehicle on the sole ground that the owner himself is the accused in this case. Therefore, there is every chance of he committing the offence again. On that ground, he rejects the application. The learned Sessions Judge has also confirmed the said Order on the same ground. Against those Orders, the petitioner is before this court.

It is the fundamental principles of Criminal Jurisprudence that in any criminal case, if any vehicle is seized and if the vehicle is not required except for the purpose of identification and in rarest of rare cases, where the vehicle itself is not liable to be handed over to the owner or any person, then by means of giving specific special reasons, the court can refuse to grant interim custody but not on the ground that the accused himself is the owner of the vehicle, the said vehicle is fitted with a mechanical profile and the vehicle is to be used in a regular basis. By the time of culmination of the entire proceedings, the vehicle may become useless. Further added to that in the event of court coming to the conclusion that the accused has not committed any offence and acquittal of the accused may lead to another circumstance of claiming compensation against the Government for retaining the custody of the said vehicle. In the circumstances, it is the first principle that normally in all the cases, the vehicle should be released in favour of the petitioner for the purpose of maintaining the vehicle and the court wants the said vehicle at the time of trial, it can impose such conditions on the owner to produce the vehicle. Therefore, when it is categorically stated by the learned Magistrate that the document produced by the petitioner establishes that he is the owner of the seized vehicle, he is entitled for interim custody of the said vehicle. Therefore, I find sufficient force in the arguments of the learned counsel for the petitioner. The Order of the learned Magistrate in CR. NO. 204/2014 dated 2.9.2014 confirmed by the Principal District and Sessions Judge in Crl. Rev. Pet No. 145/2014 is liable to be set aside. Hence, the following order.

The Criminal Petition is allowed. Consequently the Application filed by the petitioner u/s. 457 of Cr. PC in Crime No. 204/2014 is hereby allowed. The interim custody of the Tractor and Trailor bearing No. KA-40/TA-2059 and KA-40/TA-2060 is ordered to be released to the interim custody of the petitioner herein on the following conditions:

(1) The petitioner shall execute an indemnity bond for a sum of Rs. 3 lakhs (Three lakhs) only and furnish surety for the likesum to the satisfaction of the Trial Court.

(2) The petitioner shall not change the nature of the vehicle or colour of the vehicle during the pendency of the proceedings before the Trial Court.

(3) The petitioner shall produce the vehicle as and when required by the Trial Court.

(4) The petitioner shall not alienate the Tractor and Trailor during the pendency of the proceedings.

(5) Before releasing of the vehicle, the investigating officer shall take the photographs of the Tractor and Trailor in which the registration number of the said vehicle should be conspicuously appear in the said photographs.

With these conditions, the Trial Court is directed to release the said vehicle after execution of the indemnity bond. Communicate this order to the Trial Court for issue of appropriate directions to the investigating officer.