Chandramma vs State By on 23 February, 2024

Take notes as you read a judgment using our Virtual Legal Assistant and get email alerts whenever a new judgment matches your query (Query Alert Service). Try out our Premium Member services — Free for one month.

Karnataka High Court

Chandramma vs State By on 23 February, 2024

Author: Shivashankar Amarannavar

Bench: Shivashankar Amarannavar

                                                -1-
                                                             NC: 2024:KHC:7615
                                                         CRL.A No. 317 of 2024




                        IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU

                          DATED THIS THE 23RD DAY OF FEBRUARY, 2024

                                              BEFORE
                      THE HON'BLE MR JUSTICE SHIVASHANKAR AMARANNAVAR
                                 CRIMINAL APPEAL No. 317 OF 2024
                      BETWEEN:

                         CHANDRAMMA
                         W/O SHIVANNA
                         AGED ABOUT 60 YEARS
                         R/O GANGENAHALLI VILLAGE
                         SANTESHIVARA HOBLI
                         CHANNARAYAPATNA TALUK
                         HASSAN DISTRICT - 571 423.
                                                               ...APPELLANT

                      (BY SRI K R NAGARAJA, ADVOCATE)
Digitally signed by
LAKSHMINARAYANA
MURTHY RAJASHRI
Location: HIGH
                      AND:
COURT OF
KARNATAKA
                         STATE BY
                         NUGGEHALLI POLICE STATION
                         REP. BY STATE PUBLIC PROCECUTOR
                         HIGH COURT BUILDING
                         BENGALURU - 560 001.
                                                             ...RESPONDENT

                      (BY SRI CHANNAPPA ERAPPA, HCGP)

                           THIS CRL.A. IS FILED U/S.454 OF CR.P.C TO ALLOW THE
                      APPEAL AND SET ASIDE THE ORDER DATED 05.01.2023
                      CONFISCATING TRACTOR AND TAILOR WHICH IDENTIFIED AS
                      MO6 AND ORDER DATED 12.01.2024 REJECTING THE PETITION
                      OF APPELLANT MAINTAINED U/S.452 OF CRPC PASSED IN SC
                      No.91/2021 ON THE FIEL OF THE TRIAL COURT/IV
                      ADDITIONAL DISTRICT AND SESSIONS JUDGE HASSAN
                      SITTING AT CHANARAYAPATNA AND ETC.,
                             -2-
                                             NC: 2024:KHC:7615
                                         CRL.A No. 317 of 2024




     THIS APPEAL COMING ON FOR ADMISSION THIS DAY,
THE COURT DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING:

                       JUDGMENT

1. This appeal is filed challenging the order dated

05.01.2023, confiscating the Tractor and Trailer (MO.6)

passed in S.C.No.91/2021 and the order dated

12.01.2024, rejecting the application of the appellant /

applicant filed under Section 452 of Cr.P.C, by the learned

IV Additional District and Sessions Judge, Hassan, sitting

at Channarayapatna.

2. Heard learned counsel for the appellant and learned

High Court Government Pleader for the respondent –

State.

3. The appellant was an applicant and she is wife of one

Sri.Shivanna and she had filed an application under

Section 452 of Cr.P.C, seeking release of

Tractor – Trailer, bearing No.KA 44 / NT000720, Chassis

No.WSTE31419156417, Engine No.391354GD003259A.

The said Tractor and Trailer which is sought to be released
-3-
NC: 2024:KHC:7615
CRL.A No. 317 of 2024

by the appellant / applicant is marked as MO.6 in

S.C.No.91/2021. The said Tractor and Trailer has been

seized under mahazar dated 30.06.2020 (Ex.P8), stating

that it is used for committing the offence. Accused

Nos.1 to 4 were tried in S.C.No.91/2021 for the offence

under Sections 304, 201 r/w Section 34 of IPC, and they

came to be acquitted by judgment dated 05.01.2023.

Accused No.1 is son of this appellant and one

Sri.Shivanna. In the said judgment of acquittal, the Trial

Court has ordered confiscation of Tractor and Trailer

(MO.6) to the State. After disposal of the said case, the

appellant had filed an application under Section 452 of

Cr.P.C, seeking release of the Tractor and Trailer (MO.6).

The applicant who is the appellant herein, claimed release

of the Tractor and Trailer (MO.6), on the ground that the

Tractor and Trailer belongs to her husband Sri.Shivanna.

The Trial Court while rejecting the application of the

appellant, has observed as under;

“12. The applicant has produced temporary
registration certificate receipt for having paid amount
-4-
NC: 2024:KHC:7615
CRL.A No. 317 of 2024

for insurance, delivery note, copies of Aadhar card
and death certificate of owner of the tractor. A
perusal of temporary registration certificate, it
indicates the tractor was registered on 01.08.2017.
the registration validity was upto 31.08.2017 i.e.
only for one month. Thereafter the tractor was not
taken for permanent registration. Though the trailer
was also used along with tractor, the trailer was also
not registered. As per the prosecution case the
tractor and trailer were used for illegal sand
transporting. As could be seen from temporary
registration certificate the husband of the applicant is
shown as owner of the tractor. He did not get
permanent registration number after 31.08.2017.
The incident took place on 02.06.2020. Till
02.06.2020, neither permanent registration
certificate was obtained nor insurance was renewed
to the tractor. That indicates the owner of the tractor
was plying the tractor and trailer without any
registration number and without insurance that is in
complete violation of Motor Vehicles Act and Rules.
Therefore the owner of the tractor did not make any
claim either during the investigation or before the
committal court or before this court. Even before this
court neither the applicant nor her husband claimed
ownership of the tractor and trailer. Even the
accused persons did not say how they took the
tractor or while lifting the sand. The defence of the
-5-
NC: 2024:KHC:7615
CRL.A No. 317 of 2024

accused was silence during trial. This court while
disposing the case confiscated the tractor and trailer
by taking into consideration that the tractor was not
claimed by any persons. The aforesaid details clearly
indicate the husband of the applicant was using the
tractor by violating the Motor Vehicles Act and Rules
framed thereunder. The Tractor and Trailer were
used without getting the registration numbers and
without obtaining insurance. Therefore the applicant
is not entitled for release of tractor. Hence, I answer
point No.1 in the Negative.”

4. The Trial Court by making the above observations,

has rejected the application of the appellant. The rejection

of the application of the appellant is not on the ground

that the Tractor and Trailer (MO.6) does not belong to

Sri.Shivanna, husband of the appellant / applicant. The

rejection of the application is on the ground that there are

violation of provisions of Motor Vehicles Act and Rules.

The release of the vehicle cannot be rejected on the

ground that there are violations of provisions of Motor

Vehicles Act and Rules. If there are any violations of

provisions of Motor Vehicles Act and Rules, then it is for
-6-
NC: 2024:KHC:7615
CRL.A No. 317 of 2024

the appropriate Authority, to take action against the

person who has violated the said provisions. The

documents produced by the appellant / applicant indicate

that Sri.Shivanna is the owner of the Tractor and Trailer

(MO.6). The death certificate of Sri.Shivanna indicates that

he died on 17.05.2021. The said death of Sri.Shivanna is

immediately after registration of the case in

S.C.No.91/2021. In the death certificate of Sri.Shivanna,

it is stated that name of his wife is Smt.Chandramma.

The appellant is Smt.Chandramma and she is the wife of

Sri.Shivanna. The appellant being one of the legal heir of

Sri.Shivanna, who is owner of the Tractor and Trailer

(MO6), is entitled for release of the said vehicle. The said

confiscation of Tractor and Trailer (MO6) as ordered by the

Trial Court in S.C.No.91/2021 as nobody had claimed

release of the said vehicle. There are no reasons assigned

for confiscating the said Tractor and Trailer (MO.6) in the

judgment / order passed in S.C.No.91/2021.
-7-

NC: 2024:KHC:7615
CRL.A No. 317 of 2024

5. Without considering all these aspects, the learned

Trial Judge has erred in rejecting the application of the

appellant filed under Section 452 of Cr.P.C. In the result,

the following;


                           ORDER

     (i) The appeal is allowed.          The order of

confiscation of the Tractor and Trailer (MO.6)

passed in S.C.No.91/2021 dated 05.01.2023 and

the order dated 12.01.2024, rejecting the

application of the appellant / applicant filed

under Section 452 of Cr.P.C are set-aside. The

application of the appellant / applicant filed

under Section 452 of Cr.P.C stands allowed. The

appellant / applicant is entitled for release of the

Tractor and Trailer (MO.6) in S.C.No.91/2021.

(ii) The Trial Court is directed to release the

Tractor and Trailer (MO.6) to the appellant /

applicant, on her executing the indemnity bond
-8-
NC: 2024:KHC:7615
CRL.A No. 317 of 2024

for a sum of Rs.3,50,000/- with one surety for

the likesum.

(iii) The Trial Court is at liberty to impose any

other conditions which are required for release of

the Tractor and Trailer (MO.6), to the appellant /

applicant.

In view of disposal of the appeal itself, I.A.No.2/2024

does not survive for consideration.

Sd/-

JUDGE

GH
List No.: 1 Sl No.: 19

[ad_2]

Add a Comment

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *