AMARANATHA REDDY Vs. STATE

JUDGEMENT

(1.) LEARNED High Court Government Pleader is directed to take notice for the respondent -State.

(2.) HEARD the learned counsel for the petitioner and the learned High Court Government Pleader for the respondent -State.

(3.) IT is an undisputed fact that as observed in the Order of the learned Magistrate, Pathapalya Police have registered a case in Crime No. 204/2014 in connection with the transport of sand by the petitioner and in that connection the Police have seized the Tractor and Trailor belonging to the petitioner bearing its Registration No. KA -40/TA -2059 and KA -40/TA -2060 and registered a case for the offence punishable under Section 379 of IPC read with Section 4, 4(1A) and Section 21 of the Karnataka Minor Minerals Development and Regulation Act, 1957 and seized the said Tractor and Trailor under PF No. 9/2014. The learned Trial Judge has also observed in his Order that the applicant has produced the Certificate of Registration, Xerox copy of the Insurance policy, Xerox copy of the Voters ID and Voters list and holds that these documents clearly establish that the applicant is the owner of the seized vehicle in question, but he refuses to grant interim custody of the vehicle on the sole ground that the owner himself is the accused in this case. Therefore, there is every chance of he committing the offence again. On that ground, he rejects the application. The learned Sessions Judge has also confirmed the said Order on the same ground. Against those Orders, the petitioner is before this court.