K RAVINDRA MALLYA Vs. STATE OF KARNATAKA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THE petitioner being aggrieved of the order passed in CRL appeal NO. 34/03 by the Prl Sessions Judge, Dakshina Kannada, mangalore dt 18. 6. 2003 dismissing the appeal by confirming the order, has come up with this revision petition.

(2.) THE brief facts are as follows: the petitioner is the owner of the vehicle Tata Sumo bearing regn No KA-14/m-1706 and the said vehicle was seized by the police Sub-Inspector, Vittal Police Station, Vittal, on 3. 5. 2002 while illegally transporting non-duty paid liquor from the State of Karnataka to Kerala, and a case was registered in Crime No 39/02 for the offence punishable u/s 32, 34, 43 (3) of the Karnataka Excise Act against the accused and reported the same to the Superintendent of Excise (an Authorised Officer), DK, Mangalore who in-turn registered a case on his file in SDK/457/dtcr/2001-02. The petitioner filed an application before the authorised officer for release of the vehicle Tata-sumo in question. The authorised officer ordered for release of the vehicle by imposing certain conditions. The owner being dis-satisfied with the condition of furnishing Bank guarantee for Rs 90,000/- has preferred Criminal Appeal No 34/03 on the file of the Prl Sessions Judge, DK, Mangalore, which also came to be dismissed. Being aggrieved of the dismissal of the Criminal appeal, the petitioner has come up with this revision.

(3.) THE learned Counsel for the petitioner vehemently contended that without his knowledge, the vehicle was taken and used for the commission of such offence. That apart, the vehicle Tata-sumo is of the year 1995 and the present value of the vehicle also do not fetch an amount of Rs 90,000/ -. Therefore, directing the petitioner to furnish bank Guarantee is unjust and incorrect and therefore, prayed to relax the condition in so far as it relates to furnishing of Bank guarantee.