AMINSAB Vs. STATE OF KARNATAKA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) Sri.Sandeep Patil., learned counsel for the petitioner and Sri.Shivakumar R.Tengli., learned AGA for respondents have appeared in person.

(2.) The brief facts of the case are these: The petitioner is the owner of the Goods Carrier Vehicle bearing No. KA-32-D-9780. The third respondent lodged a complaint before the Police Station on 1/9/2022. It is said that the vehicle of the petitioner has been seized by the Competent Authority and registered a case in Crime No.100/2022 for the offences punishable under Ss.

(3.) and 7 of the Essential Commodities Act. In the meanwhile, the petitioner filed an application under Sec. 457 of Cr.P.C for the release of the vehicle. The second respondent after obtaining estimation from the transport department, directed the petitioner to furnish Bank Guarantee of Rs.6,50,500.00 (Rupees Six Lakh Fifty Thousand and Five Hundred only). It is averred that the third respondent Police, only on the basis of the suspicion, seized the vehicle. It is also contended that the petitioner has not committed any offence as alleged in the FIR. The petitioner is doing petty business and the goods vehicle is the only source of income. It is said that the second respondent passed an order for release of the vehicle with a condition that petitioner has to furnish Bank Guarantee for a sum of Rs.6,50,500.00 (Rupees Six Lakh Fifty Thousand and Five Hundred only). Under these circumstances, petitioner having left with no other efficacious and alternative remedy, has filed this Writ Petition under Articles 226 & 227 of the Constitution of India. 3. Learned counsel for the petitioner and respondents have urged several contentions.