Sudhakar vs The Deputy Commissioner and The State of Karnataka

Mohan. M. Shantanagoudar, J.—Petitioner is the owner of transport vehicle bearing Registration No KA 38 7381; the Sub Inspector of Police, Gulbarga Rural on getting the information stopped the said vehicle and on search, it was found that the petitioner was carrying 40 bags of rice containing 50 kilograms each. Immediately thereafter Crime No. 386/2013 was registered under the provisions of the Essential Commodities Act, 1955 read with certain provisions of IPC. The rice as well as the vehicle involved in the incident were seized since it was found that the rice which is being carried by the petitioner is meant for public distribution under the provisions of the Essential Commodities Act. The petitioner being the owner of the said transport vehicle filed application for release of the vehicle. The Deputy Commissioner, Gulbarga by the Endorsement Annexure-E dated 2.1.2014 passed an order for releasing the vehicle subject to the petitioner furnishing bank guarantee for Rs. 2,00,000/-. It is also mentioned in the Endorsement that the vehicle is worth Rs. 2,00,000/-. Being aggrieved by the Endorsement Annexure-E directing the petitioner to furnish bank guarantee for Rs. 2,00,000/-, this writ petition is filed. Sri Ananth S. Jahagirdar, learned advocate for the petitioner submits that the petitioner is innocent; no crime is registered against him; crime is registered only against two persons who were transporting the rice in the vehicle of the petitioner. According to the petitioner''s counsel, the petitioner is merely a Transporter and he did not know that the rice belongs to the State for being distributed under Public Distribution System. He relies upon the judgment of this Court in Writ Petition No. 100758/2013 (GM-EC) disposed of on 15th March 2013 to contend that leniency may be shown to the petitioner by directing the petitioner to furnish bond of solvent surety for Rs. 2,00,000/-

The writ petition is opposed by Sri Sharanabasappa K. Babshetty, learned Government Pleader. He submits that undue sympathy may not be shown in favour of the petitioner in such matters inasmuch as the petitioner was found transporting rice belonging to Public Distribution System.

It is no doubt true that the petitioner is not arrayed as accused in the crime. However the fact remains that petitioner is the owner of the vehicle in question in which rice is being transported. It is prima-facie found by the authorities that the rice belongs to the State and the same is meant for distribution to poor public through ration shops. In this view of the matter, the petitioner ought to have been vigilant while accepting the offer to transport the rice.

Be that as it may, even according to the respondents, the vehicle is worth Rs. 2,00,000/-. In that context, the Deputy Commissioner directed the petitioner to furnish bank guarantee for Rs. 2,00,000/-.

The Apex Court in the case of State of Karnataka Vs. K. Krishnan, while dealing with the similar situation under the Karnataka Forest Act has observed that the vehicle used for committing a forest offence normally should not be returned to the party till the culmination of all proceedings in respect of such offence including confiscatory proceedings, if any; Nonetheless, if for any exceptional reasons a Court is inclined to release the vehicle during such pendency, furnishing a bank guarantee should be the minimum condition; No party shall be under the impression that release of vehicle would be possible on easier terms, when such vehicle is alleged to have been involved in commission of a forest offence; Any such easy release would tempt the forest offenders to repeat the commission of such offences; Casualty will be the forests as the same cannot be replenished for years to come.

Though the same analogy may not be applicable in the strict sense to the matters like the one on hand, but the principle laid down in the judgment of the Apex Court may be a guiding factor for the Court while passing the order. In the matter on hand, the rice belongs to Public Distribution System which is meant for poor ration card holders. It is the property of the State. The petitioner ought to have been vigilant in accepting the offer to transport. He should have made enquiry as to whether the accused is the owner of rice in question or not. It is not open for him to plead ignorance after seizure of the vehicle. The records reveal that the petitioner has obtained loan from the bank and purchased the vehicle in question and he is paying installments monthly to the bank.

Having regard to the totality of facts and circumstances, since the vehicle is worth Rs. 2,00,000/-, interest of justice is met with if the petitioner is directed to furnish bank guarantee for Rs. 1,00,000/- and to furnish bond of solvent surety.

Accordingly, the following order is made:

The vehicle bearing Registration No. KA 38 7381 shall be released in favour of the petitioner subject to the following conditions:

(a) Petitioner shall furnish bank guarantee for Rs. 1,00,000/- (Rupees one lakh only).

(b) Petitioner shall furnish bond of two solvent sureties for Rs. 2,00,000/- (Rupees two lakhs only) to the satisfaction of the Deputy Commissioner. Petition stands disposed of accordingly.