STATE OF KARNATAKA Vs. VASUDEVA K. S.

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This petition is filed under Section 482 of Cr.P.C. praying this Court to set aside the order dated 11.05.2020 passed by the Principal District and Sessions Judge, Udupi passed in Crl.R.P.No.38/2020, thereby confirming the order dated 27.06.2019 passed in P.C.No.215/2019 passed by II Additional Civil Judge and JMFC, Karkala and also made the prayer to dismiss the application filed by the respondent under Sections 451 and 457 of Cr.P.C. seeking release of the vehicle bearing KA-20-D-0230 to pass such other order or orders as this Court deems fit.

(2.) The factual matrix of the case is that on 03.05.2019 at Sooda Village, Karkala when Senior Geologist, when checking the vehicle bearing No.KA-20D-0230, he found 8 metric ton building stones was being transported without valid license or permit and the said vehicle was seized and the vehicle seized was subjected to property form and the permission was obtained to retain the same. The complaint filed by the Geologist before II Additional Civil Judge and JMFC, Karkala which was registered in P.C.No.215/2019. Thereafter, the investigation was completed and charge sheet was filed. The respondent herein had entered appearance and filed application under Sections 451 and 457 of Cr.P.C. to release the seized vehicle. Learned Magistrate entertained the application and not considered the Rule 43 sub rule 8 of Karnataka Minor Minerals Concession Rules, 1994 (for short 'the KMMC Rules'). Being aggrieved by the order, the Revision was also filed before the Sessions Judge, who also dismissed the Revision Petition. Hence, the present petition is filed before the Court.

(3.) The grounds urged in the petition is that the impugned orders passed by both the Courts are against the Rule 43 sub rules 7 and 8 of the KMMC Rules. It is contended that the sub rules of Rule 43 of KMMC Rules has been enacted keeping in mind the gravity of the offence and also to secure the ecological balance. The intention of the legislature is clear in this aspect. It is enacted to regulate the offences by imposing the double of the value of the vehicle as Bank Guarantee, which is a different procedure. In view of the order passed by both the Courts the very legislative intent is defeated. Hence, both the orders are liable to the set aside.