You are on page 1of 8

1

IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA


GULBARGA BENCH

DATED THIS THE 6TH DAY OF FEBRUARY 2014

BEFORE

THE HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE MOHAN. M. SHANTANAGOUDAR

WRIT PETITION NO.201717/2014 (GM-EC)

BETWEEN:

Sudhakar S/o Veershetty Biradar


Age:36 years, Occ:Business,
R/o Near old Bus Stop
Bagdal, Tq./Dist. Bidar – 585 401.

..Petitioner
(By Sri Ananth S. Jahagirdar, Advocate)

AND :

1. The Deputy Commissioner,


(Food & Civil Supplies)
Gulbarga.
Mini Vidhan Soudha
Main Road,
Gulbarga – 585 102.

2. The State of Karnataka


Through Grameen P.S.
Gulbarga – 585 102.
..Respondents
(By Sri Sharanabasappa K. Babshetty, HCGP)
2

This Writ Petition is filed under Articles 226 & 227 of


the Constitution of India, praying to issue a writ of certiorari
and grant the following reliefs: quash the order dated
02.01.2014 passed by the respondent No.1 in file No.
DºÁgÀ:E¹PÁAiÉÄÝ:4:2013-14, as far as directing the petitioner to

furnish the bank guarantee for release of vehicle is


concerned, the original copy of which is as per Annexure-E
and release the vehicle KA-38-7381 by accepting the surety
of immovable property to the satisfaction of the authority
concerned in accordance of law etc.,

This Writ Petition coming on for Preliminary hearing


this day, the Court made the following:

ORDER

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,


3

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.

2. 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


4

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 maynot be shown in favour of the

petitioner in such matters inasmuch as the petitioner was

found transporting rice belonging to Public Distribution

System.

3. It is no doubt true that the petitioner is not

arrayed as accused in the crime. However the fact remains


5

that petitioner is the owner of the vehicle in question in

which rice is being transported. It is primafacie 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/-.

4. The Apex Court in the case of STATE OF

KARNATAKA .vs. K. KRISHNAN reported in AIR 2000 SC

2729 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


6

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


7

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.

5. 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:
8

(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.

Sd/-
JUDGE

Gss/-

You might also like