Ibrahim vs State Of Karnataka

Though this matter is listed for admission, with the consent of the counsel for both the sides, it is taken up for final disposal and heard the petitioner's counsel and also the learned HCGP for respondent-State.

The factual matrix of the case is that vehicle is seized in connection with the offence under the Karnataka Minor Mineral Concession Rule, 1994 and the application is filed before the Addl. District and Sessions Judge, Gadag for the release of vehicle in Crl.Misc.No.90/2019. The additional District and Session Judge, Gadag by the order dated 28.02.2019 allowed the application and imposed certain conditions. The petitioner being the owner of the vehicle, aggrieved by the order of the Court below, insofar as condition No.5 that the petitioner shall furnish renewable bank guarantee to the tune of Rs.4,00,000/- which is double the value of the seized vehicle as assessed by the complainant, the petitioner filed petition before this Court invoking Section 482 of Cr.P.C. praying to set aside the condition No.5.

The main ground urged in the petition is that petitioner is the owner of the seized vehicle and the seized vehicle is kept idle nearly about 5 to 6 months. The petitioner unable to furnish renewable bank guarantee to the tune of Rs.4,00,000/- as condition imposed by the addition Sessions Judge is highly improper and perverse and bad in law and hence, prayed this Court to set aside the condition No.5.

Per contra, the learned HCGP for respondent in his argument contends that Rule 43 of the KMMC Rules are amended and the condition imposed is based on the Rule 43(8) of the KMMC Rules and it is specific that the owner has to furnish the renewable bank guarantee of the amount equal to double the value of such vehicle and which is in accordance with law. Hence, impugned order cannot be set aside.

Having heard the arguments of the petitioner's counsel and the learned HCGP for the respondent-State and also on perusal of condition No.5, I do not find any error committed by the Court below in imposing the condition. Admittedly, Rule 43(8) of the KMMC Rules where the specific provision is made that no release of the vehicle which shall however not include the minor mineral so seized shall be made unless there is an execution by the owner therof, of security in the form of a renewable bank guarantee, of an amount equal to double the value of such vehicle before the competent court having jurisdiction to try the offence on account of which the seizure has been made. 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 order of such Court.

For having taken note of the recent amendment of Rule 43(8) of the KMMC Rules, the Court below rightly imposed condition No.5 to furnish renewable bank guarantee which is double the value of the seized vehicle and while considering the provision also the Court has to keep in mind, the very object in bringing the amendment and wisdom of legislature and intent of the legislature has to be kept in mind. The transportation of the sand without the permit which is menace to society with that object only the rule has been amended and the order passed by the additional Session Judge is in consonance with rule which has been amended and the same is in accordance with Rule 43(8) of the KMMC Rules. This Court cannot interpret the law as against the statute and the very purpose of bringing the said amendment is to curb menace in the society and with that object only the amendment is brought in and the very object of the amendment has to be kept in mind while considering the matter. The contention of the petitioner's counsel that the very order is bad in law cannot be accepted. Hence, I do not find any ground to interfere with the order of the Court below. The order passed by the Additional Sessions Judge is in accordance with rule and provision as contended by the respondent's counsel. The Court is having power to interpret the law and not to interpret the law against the statute as against the legislative intent and wisdom of the legislature. The amendment is brought in 2017 in order to stop the illegal movement of minerals and hence, in view of the said Rule 43(8) of the KMMC Rules which has not been stuck down and hence, I do not find any reasons to interfere with the impugned order.

In view of the above discussions, I proceed to pass the following:

ORDER

The petition is dismissed.