Title: Mustafa s/o Maktumsab Rasoolanavar And The State of Karnataka
Case No: Criminal Revision Petition No. 100268 of 2023 (397-)
Date of Order: 18-07-2023
INTRODUCTION
The Karnataka High Court has emphasized that when requesting a payment for the release of a confiscated vehicle to its owner temporarily, in accordance with Rule 232-G of the Karnataka Motor Vehicle Rules, the Court must factor in the likely worth of the vehicle. The set security amount should not be arbitrarily determined without a proper foundation.
FACTS OF THE CASE
Petitioner Mustafa Rasoolanava approached the Court to contest a decision made by the trial court regarding his application under section 457 CrPC. This application was for the release of his seized tractor. The trial court had directed him to deposit Rs. 5,00,000 in cash as security and also provide an indemnity bond of the same amount for temporary custody of the tractor. The tractor had been seized due to its involvement in an incident covered by Sections 279, 283, 338, and 304(A) of the IPC, with a case registered at the Dharwad Rural Police station.
The petitioner’s sole argument was that he had no issue with furnishing the Rs. 5,00,000 indemnity bond as ordered by the trial court. However, he believed that the requirement to deposit the same amount of Rs. 5,00,000 as per Rule 232G of the Karnataka Motor Vehicle Rules was excessive.
Initially, the court dismissed the prosecution’s claim that the petition challenging the interim order from the trial court was not valid. Citing a precedent set by the Madras High Court in the case of Ganesa Moorthy vs. State Rep. By The Inspector Of Police, Kattumannarkoil (2019), the bench ruled that a revision petition against an order issued under Section 451 of the Cr.P.C. was indeed admissible.
COURTS OBSERVATION
Observing that the confiscated automobile lacks insurance coverage, which justifies the trial Court’s use of Rule 232-G from the 1989 Karnataka Motor Vehicles Regulations to demand a satisfactory security deposit. This deposit would cover potential compensation in the event of a claim arising from the accident. The bench explained that this rule aims to safeguard claimants’ interests in cases where the vehicle lacks insurance. When requesting a deposit for the vehicle’s provisional release, even under Rule 232-G, the Court must factor in the vehicle’s likely value, and the security amount should not be arbitrarily determined.
In the current situation, the Court assessed the impounded vehicle, noting that it is a 1997 model, making it over 26 years old. Considering yearly depreciation and the vehicle’s current state, the Court determined that adjusting the deposit to a cash amount of Rs. 2 lakhs, alongside the previously ordered indemnity and surety bonds totaling Rs. 5 lakhs, would be appropriate.
“PRIME LEGAL is a full-service law firm that has won a National Award and has more than 20 years of experience in an array of sectors and practice areas. Prime legal fall into a category of best law firm, best lawyer, best family lawyer, best divorce lawyer, best divorce law firm, best criminal lawyer, best criminal law firm, best consumer lawyer, best civil lawyer.”
Written by- Shreya Sharma
