0

Appeal Against Orders: Disposal and Conversion in High Court, Karnataka

Case Name: MR. RANGASWAMY vs. MR. RAMESH and SMT. PRATHIBA

Case Number: Miscellaneous First Appeal No. 2826 of 2024 (AA).

Dated On: May 2, 2024.

Quorum: The Hon’ble Mr. Justice B M Shyam Prasad and The Hon’ble Mr. Justice T.G. Shivashankare Gowda.

FACTS OF THE CASE

Mr. Rangaswamy, represented by his advocate Mr. Harsha D Joshi, initiated legal proceedings against Mr. Ramesh and Mrs. Prathiba, represented by their advocate Mr. Yogesh V. Kote. The dispute appears to revolve around certain orders passed in AA.No.76/2023 by the 17 Additional City Civil and Sessions Judge, Bengaluru CCH-16, on March 4, 2024. Mr. Rangaswamy lodged an appeal challenging the specific orders issued on IA.Nos. 1 and 2 in AA.No.76/2023. The first order, dismissed under Order 39 Rule 1 and 2 along with Section 151 of CPC, appears to have been unfavourable to Mr. Rangaswamy’s interests. Conversely, the second order, allowed under Order 39 Rule 4 along with Section 151 of CPC, might have favoured the respondents, Mr. Ramesh and Mrs. Prathiba. Prior to filing this appeal, Mr. Rangaswamy lodged a writ petition, W.P.No.9500/2024 [GM-CPC], challenging the same order. The High Court disposed of this writ petition on April 2, 2024, granting Mr. Rangaswamy permission to convert it into a Miscellaneous First Appeal, now identified as M.F.A.No.2817/2024. This conversion suggests that the issues raised in the writ petition were to be addressed through the appeal process. Upon considering the circumstances and the previous conversion of the writ petition into M.F.A.No.2817/2024, the High Court determined that the current appeal, MFA No. 2826 of 2024, lacked basis for maintenance. As a result, the High Court disposed of this appeal, reserving the liberty for Mr. Rangaswamy to pursue the appeal in M.F.A.No.2817/2024.

ISSUES

  • Were the orders on IA.Nos. 1 and 2 in AA.No.76/2023 legally sound?
  • Conversion of Writ Petition: What are the implications of converting the original writ petition into M.F.A.No.2817/2024?
  • Maintainability of Current Appeal: Is MFA No. 2826 of 2024 justified given the conversion and disposal of the writ petition by the High Court?

LEGAL PROVISIONS

Code of Civil Procedure (CPC):

  • Section 151: Deals with the inherent powers of the court to make orders necessary for the ends of justice or to prevent abuse of the process of the court.
  • Order 39 Rule 1 and 2: Pertains to temporary injunctions, which may be granted to restrain the defendant from committing acts that would cause injury to the plaintiff.
  • Order 39 Rule 4: Concerns the court’s power to grant temporary injunctions and interlocutory orders.

CONTENTIONS OF THE APPELLANT

Mr. Rangaswamy, through his advocate Mr. Harsha D Joshi, contested the orders issued on IA.Nos. 1 and 2 in AA.No.76/2023. He argued that the dismissal of IA.No.1 under Order 39 Rule 1 and 2 along with Section 151 of CPC was unjust and prejudicial to his case. Additionally, he disputed the allowance of IA.No.2 under Order 39 Rule 4 along with Section 151 of CPC, suggesting that it was not in accordance with the facts or the law. Mr. Rangaswamy aimed to overturn the adverse order (IA.No.1) and challenge the favourable order (IA.No.2) granted to the respondents, Mr. Ramesh and Mrs. Prathiba. His contention was likely centred on demonstrating errors in the lower court’s decision-making process or misinterpretation of the law. It’s important to note that Mr. Rangaswamy initially pursued legal recourse through a writ petition, W.P.No.9500/2024 [GM-CPC]. However, this petition was converted into a Miscellaneous First Appeal, M.F.A.No.2817/2024, by the High Court. This conversion indicates Mr. Rangaswamy’s intention to challenge the same orders through a different legal avenue, suggesting his determination to seek redress for perceived injustices. In summary, Mr. Rangaswamy, as the appellant, contested the validity of the orders issued in AA.No.76/2023, aiming to reverse the unfavourable decision against him and challenge the favourable decision for the respondents. His contentions likely revolved around demonstrating errors or inconsistencies in the lower court’s rulings and seeking a fair resolution to the dispute.

CONTENTIONS OF THE RESPONDENT

The respondents likely argued that the orders issued on IA.Nos. 1 and 2 in AA.No.76/2023 were just and lawful. They might have contended that the dismissal of IA.No.1 under Order 39 Rule 1 and 2 along with Section 151 of CPC was warranted based on the facts and evidence presented in court. Similarly, they may have justified the allowance of IA.No.2 under Order 39 Rule 4 along with Section 151 of CPC, asserting that it was in accordance with the law and supported by the merits of the case. Mr. Ramesh and Mrs. Prathiba likely disputed the appellant’s allegations of injustice or error in the lower court’s decisions. They might have presented counter arguments to refute the appellant’s contentions, attempting to demonstrate the correctness and validity of the orders challenged by the appellant. Given that one of the orders was in their favour, the respondents might have emphasised the importance of upholding the decision that favoured them (IA.No.2). They would likely have argued for the preservation of any advantage gained through the lower court’s rulings, asserting their right to the relief granted to them. In response to the appellant’s challenge, the respondents likely sought the dismissal of the appeal (MFA No. 2826 of 2024) on grounds such as lack of merit or procedural irregularities. They may have urged the court to uphold the orders issued in their favour by the lower court and reject the appellant’s attempts to overturn them. In summary, the respondents, Mr. Ramesh and Mrs. Prathiba, likely defended the validity of the lower court’s orders, opposed the appellant’s claims of injustice, emphasised the importance of preserving any advantage gained through the rulings, and requested the dismissal of the appellant’s appeal.

COURT’S ANALYSIS AND JUDGEMENT

The court’s analysis and judgement appear to be straightforward. The court noted that the appellant, Mr. Rangaswamy, had initially filed a writ petition challenging the same orders that he now seeks to appeal against. The High Court disposed of this writ petition by permitting its conversion into a Miscellaneous First Appeal, which was numbered as M.F.A.No.2817/2024.

The court recognized that this conversion indicated Mr. Rangaswamy’s intent to pursue his grievances through the appellate process rather than through a writ petition. As a result, the court found that the current appeal, MFA No. 2826 of 2024, cannot be maintained. It held that since Mr. Rangaswamy had already addressed the issues through M.F.A.No.2817/2024, the present appeal lacked a basis for continuation.

In light of this analysis, the court disposed of the current appeal, MFA No. 2826 of 2024, with liberty reserved for Mr. Rangaswamy to prosecute the appeal in M.F.A.No.2817/2024. This disposition indicates that the court recognized the procedural history of the case and deemed it appropriate for Mr. Rangaswamy to pursue his grievances through the converted Miscellaneous First Appeal.

In summary, the court’s analysis focused on the procedural aspects of the case, particularly the conversion of the writ petition into a Miscellaneous First Appeal, and its judgement reflected a pragmatic approach to the resolution of the appeal.

“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.”

Judgement Reviewed by- Shruti Gattani

Click here to view judgement

0

Karnataka High Court Orders Registration Of Sale Certificate Cannot Be Denied Despite Pending Income Tax Dues.

Case title: SRI. T.BHARATHGOWDA VS. STATE OF KARNATAKA AND ORS.

Case no: WRIT PETITION No.7872 OF 2024 (GM-RES)

Order on: 28th May, 2024

Quorum: THE HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE M. NAGAPRASANNA

Fact of the case:

In this writ petition, The petitioner, Sri T. Bharathgowda, seeks registration of a sale certificate for a property originally owned by Thimme Gowda, T. Raghavendra Gowda, and T. Prasanna Raghavendra Gowda. The property is located at 11th Cross, Wilson Garden, Hombegowdanagara, Bengaluru. The original owners had mortgaged the property to Canara Bank (the 3rd respondent) and defaulted on the loan. This led to proceedings under the Securitisation and Reconstruction of Financial Assets and Enforcement of Security Interest Act, 2002 (SARFAESI Act). The property was auctioned on 19-03-2022, where the petitioner emerged as the successful bidder. After paying the full consideration, the petitioner received a sale certificate on 30-09-2022. The petitioner attempted to register the sale certificate at the jurisdictional Sub-Registrar’s office (the 2nd respondent). Despite paying all necessary fees and stamp duty, the registration was refused verbally due to pending Income Tax claims against the original borrowers. The petitioner sent letters to the Sub-Registrar and Canara Bank to clarify the situation and request registration. With no response from the Sub-Registrar, the petitioner filed a writ petition seeking a court order for registration of the sale certificate.

Issues framed by court:

  1. Whether the Sub-Registrar has the discretion to refuse registration of the sale certificate based on pending Income Tax dues against the borrowers.
  2. Whether other statutory dues pending against the borrowers would entail non-registration of a document, need not detain this Court for long, or delve deep into the matter.

Legal provisions:

Securitisation and Reconstruction of Financial Assets and Enforcement of Security Interest Act, 2002 (SARFAESI Act)-

Section 26E: Gives priority to the debts of secured creditors over all other debts and statutory dues after the registration of security interest.

Section 35:  States that the provisions of the SARFAESI Act will have effect notwithstanding anything inconsistent with it contained in any other law for the time being in force.

Registration Act, 1908:

Section 71: Outlines the grounds on which a Sub-Registrar can refuse to register a document, which include reasons related to the proper identification of the property, language issues, and compliance with required formalities.

Karnataka Registration Rules, 1965:

Rule 171:  Enumerates specific reasons for which a Sub-Registrar can refuse to register a document, such as issues with language, unattested alterations, insufficient property description, and absence of required maps or plans.

Contentions of Appellant:

The petitioner argued that the SARFAESI Act provides that the rights of secured creditors take precedence over other debts and statutory dues. Therefore, the Sub-Registrar had no jurisdiction to refuse the registration of the sale certificate on the basis of pending Income Tax dues against the borrowers. The petitioner contended that he had complied with all necessary formalities for registration, including the payment of stamp duty and other fees. Hence, there was no valid ground under the Registration Act or the Karnataka Registration Rules for the refusal to register the sale certificate. The petitioner highlighted that the sale of the property had not been challenged by the borrowers before any judicial or quasi-judicial authority, indicating that the sale was uncontested and thus should be registered without hindrance.

Contentions of Respondents:

 The Additional Government Advocate, representing the Sub-Registrar, contended that the registration of the sale certificate could not be completed due to the pending Income Tax dues against the original borrowers. The respondent argued that these statutory dues needed to be cleared before the property could be registered as free from encumbrance. The respondent maintained that the Sub-Registrar was acting within his rights to ensure that all statutory dues were settled before registering the document, to prevent any legal complications arising from encumbrances on the property.

The counsel for Canara Bank supported the petitioner’s contention, emphasizing that the rights of the secured creditor under the SARFAESI Act override any other statutory dues, including those of the Income Tax Department. The Bank argued that once the property was auctioned and the sale certificate issued under the SARFAESI Act, the Sub-Registrar had no discretion to refuse registration based on unrelated statutory dues.

Court Analysis & Judgement:

The court emphasized the provisions of the SARFAESI Act, which prioritize the rights of secured creditors over other claims, including statutory dues. The court reviewed the grounds under which the Sub-Registrar can refuse registration. It found that the Sub-Registrar exceeded his authority by refusing registration on grounds not supported by the Registration Act or the Karnataka Registration Rules. The court referenced Supreme Court judgments, which assert that secured creditors’ rights under the SARFAESI Act override other statutory claims, including those by the Income Tax Department.

Therefore, The court allowed the writ petition, directing the Sub-Registrar to register the sale certificate without delay. A mandamus was issued to the Sub-Registrar to register the document immediately upon presentation of the court order. The court directed the State Government to issue a circular to all Sub-Registrars, clarifying the legal position and the limitations on their discretion to refuse registration. The State Government was ordered to report compliance with the circular issuance within eight weeks.

“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.”

Judgement Reviewed By- Antara Ghosh

0

Karnataka High Court Sets Aside Lower Court Order Grants Bail In Murder Conspiracy Case Involving SC/ST Act.

Case title: MANIKANTA @ MANI VS. THE STATE OF KARNATAKA AND SMT. PADMAVATHIYAMMA @ PADMAVATHI

Case no: CRIMINAL APPEAL No. 258 OF 2024

Order on: 27th May, 2024

Quorum: THE HON’BLE MR JUSTICE SHIVASHANKAR AMARANNAVAR

Fact of the case:

Manikanta @ Mani, the appellant, was accused in a criminal case involving the murder of Sri Renukumar. The incident occurred on May 25, 2023, when the deceased was assaulted by several individuals with long choppers, resulting in his death. The appellant, accused No. 7, was not present at the scene but was alleged to have conspired with other accused to kill the deceased. The charge sheet included serious charges under the Indian Penal Code (IPC) and the Scheduled Castes and the Scheduled Tribes (Prevention of Atrocities) Act (SC/ST Act). The appellant was in judicial custody since his arrest on June 1, 2023, and his initial bail application was rejected by the LXX Additional City Civil and Sessions Judge, Bengaluru.

Legal provisions:

Indian Penal Code (IPC), 1860

Section 201: Causing disappearance of evidence of offense, or giving false information to screen offender.

Section 120(B): Punishment for criminal conspiracy.

Section 34: Acts done by several persons in furtherance of common intention.

Scheduled Castes and the Scheduled Tribes (Prevention of Atrocities) Act, 1989 (SC/ST Act)

Section 3(1)(r): Punishment for intentionally insulting or intimidating with intent to humiliate a member of a Scheduled Caste or a Scheduled Tribe in any place within public view.

Section 3(1)(s): Punishment for abusing any member of a Scheduled Caste or a Scheduled Tribe by caste name in any place within public view.

Section 3(2)(v): Punishment for committing any offense under the IPC punishable with imprisonment for a term of ten years or more against a person knowing that such person is a member of a Scheduled Caste or a Scheduled Trib

Contentions of Appellant:

The appellant, Manikanta @ Mani, was not present at the crime scene when the assault and subsequent murder of the deceased occurred. The main accusation against him was of conspiracy, not of directly participating in the murder. The appellant argued for bail based on parity, as another co-accused (accused No. 8) with similar allegations had been granted bail by the court. The appellant contended that he should be treated similarly since his involvement was also limited to the conspiracy. The appellant’s counsel assured the court that the appellant would not tamper with evidence or threaten prosecution witnesses if released on bail.

Contentions of Respondents:

 The respondent, represented by the High Court Government Pleader, highlighted that the appellant was charged with serious offenses, including murder (Section 302 of IPC), which are punishable by death or life imprisonment. The heinous nature of these crimes warranted a denial of bail. The respondent emphasized that the appellant had a criminal background as a rowdy sheeter at Mahadevapura Police Station. There was a substantial risk that he could tamper with evidence or threaten prosecution witnesses if released on bail. The prosecution maintained that there was strong evidence of the appellant’s involvement in the conspiracy to commit murder, which justified his continued detention.

Court Analysis & Judgement:

The court, after considering the arguments, noted that the appellant was not present at the scene of the crime when the assault and murder occurred. The actual assault was carried out by accused Nos. 1 to 3, while the appellant’s role was limited to conspiracy. The court recognized that accused No. 8, who was similarly accused of conspiracy, had already been granted bail. Based on the principle of parity, the court found that the appellant should be treated similarly and be granted bail. The court considered the conditions proposed to mitigate risks, including the execution of a personal bond, ensuring the appellant’s cooperation with the investigation, and his commitment not to tamper with evidence or threaten witnesses.

The court allowed the appeal, setting aside the impugned order dated November 27, 2023, which had denied bail to the appellant. The court ordered release on bail for certain conditions. The appellant must execute a personal bond for Rs. 1,00,000/- with one surety for the like sum to the satisfaction of the jurisdictional court. The appellant must not threaten the complainant or tamper with prosecution witnesses. The appellant must cooperate with the Investigating Officer in any further investigation. The appellant must appear before the Trial Court on all hearing dates unless exempted and cooperate for the speedy disposal of the case. The appellant must not commit any offense during the pendency of the case against him.

By imposing these conditions, the court aimed to ensure that the appellant’s release on bail would not adversely affect the investigation or trial proceedings.

“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.”

Judgement Reviewed By- Antara Ghosh

0

Karnataka HC Reverses Acquittal in Rs. 5 Lakh Loan Dispute.

Case Title: SRI. JITHENDRA KUMAR N.M vs. SRI. T. GURURAJ

Case No.: CRIMINAL APPEAL NO.2158/2018

Dated on: 27th MAY, 2024

Coram: HON’BLE MR JUSTICE RAJENDRA BADAMIKAR

Facts:

The appellant, Sri. Jithendra Kumar N.M., appealed against the acquittal of the respondent, Sri. T. Gururaj, by the trial court in a case under Section 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act. The appellant claimed that the respondent, a relative, borrowed Rs. 5 lakhs in October 2013 and issued a cheque for repayment, which was dishonored due to insufficient funds. Despite admitting the loan and issuing the cheque, the respondent argued that the debt was repaid and the cheque was given as a blank security instrument. The trial court acquitted the respondent, but the HC, noting the respondent’s admissions and lack of evidence of repayment, found the acquittal erroneous and decided to interfere with the judgment.

Issue framed by the Court:

  1. Whether the impugned judgment of acquittal passed by the learned Magistrate is arbitrary, erroneous, and perverse so as to call for any interference by this Court.

Legal Provisions:

Section 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act: It states about the offence of dishonouring a cheque for insufficiency of funds or exceeding the arranged amount.

Section 313 of Cr.P.C: It empowers the court to examine the accused.

Section 139 of the N.I. Act: Presumption in favour of holder.

Contentions of the Appellant:

The appellant, Sri. Jithendra Kumar N.M., contended that the respondent, Sri. T. Gururaj, had admitted to borrowing Rs. 5 lakhs and issuing a cheque for repayment, which bounced due to insufficient funds. The appellant argued that this admission and the presumption under Section 139 of the N.I. Act favored him, establishing the cheque as issued towards a legally enforceable debt. He asserted that the trial court erroneously acquitted the respondent by not properly considering these admissions and the legal presumptions. Therefore, he sought the reversal of the acquittal and the conviction of the respondent under Section 138 of the N.I. Act.

Contentions of the Respondent:

The respondent, Sri. T. Gururaj, contended that although he admitted to borrow Rs. 5 lakhs from the appellant and issuing a cheque, the loan had already been repaid. He argued that the cheque was given as a blank security instrument at the time of the loan’s advancement. The respondent’s counsel emphasized that the presumption in favor of the appellant had been rebutted by evidence elicited during cross-examination, including the assertion that blank cheques were obtained by the appellant. The respondent maintained that the trial court correctly acquitted him, having properly appreciated these aspects, and thus sought the dismissal of the appeal.

Court’s Analysis and Judgement:

The Court analyzed that the respondent had admitted to borrow Rs. 5 lakhs and issuing the cheque in his reply notice, thereby establishing the presumption of a legally enforceable debt under Section 139 of the Negotiable Instruments Act. The respondent failed to substantiate his claim of loan repayment as he did not provide evidence or enter the witness box. The trial court’s judgment was found to be erroneous as it overlooked these admissions and focused on irrelevant aspects, such as other criminal cases against the respondent’s wife. Consequently, the High Court found the acquittal arbitrary and erroneous, deciding to set it aside and convict the respondent for the offence under Section 138 of the N.I. Act, while also considering the conduct of both parties in determining the sentence.

“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.”

Judgement Reviewed By- Shramana Sengupta

0

Karnataka High Court : Upholds Denial of Bail to Orissa-Origin Trial in Bengaluru Drug Seizure Case

Karnataka High Court : Upholds Denial of Bail to Orissa-Origin Trial in Bengaluru Drug Seizure Case

Case title: KUNNA SUNNA AND ORS VS THE STATE OF KARNATAKA

Case no.: CRIMINAL PETITION NO. 4191 OF 2024

Dated on: 16nd May 2024

Quorum:  Hon’ble. MR JUSTICE H.P. SANDESH

FACTS OF THE CASE

The present petition is filed under Section 439 of Cr.P.C seeking regular bail by these the petitioners/accused Nos.1 to 3 in Crime No.359/2023 (Spl.C.C.No.637/2024) of Cotton pet Police Station, Heard the learned counsel for the petitioners and the learned High Court Government Pleader appearing for the respondent-State. Cotton pet sub-division, Bengaluru City for the offence punishable under Section 2(b)(ii)(C) of the Narcotic Drugs and Psychotropic Substances Act, 1985 (‘the NDPS Act’ for short). The factual matrix of case of prosecution is that on 14.09.2023 at about 8.00 p.m., the complainant has received credible information that within the limits of Cotton pet Police Station, Cotton pet main road, Cotton pet, Bengaluru City, the persons of Orissa origin are carrying contraband in their Swift Dezire Car bearing No. OD-24-J 5932. On receipt of information, he has informed the matter to ACP, obtained permission to conduct the raid, informed the matter to panchas and staff, proceeded to the spot. In the spot three persons were found and when the vehicle of accused was checked in that several ganja packets were found packed in a khaki colour cello tape, the total ganja found in the car is 161 K.Gs. The said ganja was kept in the cement bags. A detail mahazar was drawn by seizing the ganja. The report is submitted and case is registered and investigation is also completed and accused Nos.1 to 3 were found with conspicuous position of ganja worth of Rs.1,40,00,000/-, the same is transported from Orissa to Bangalore. The Police have investigated the matter and filed the Charge sheet.

ISSUES

  1. Whether the petitioners are entitled to bail under Section 439 of the Criminal Procedure Code (Cr.P.C.)?
  2. Whether the allegations against the petitioners regarding the transportation of contraband substances are substantiated?
  3. Whether the quantity of ganja seized, the involvement of an Orissa-registered vehicle, and the duration of custody weigh against granting bail?

LEGAL PROVISIONS

Criminal procedure code 1973

Section 439 of Cr.P.C.: This section deals with the special powers of High Court or Court of Sessions regarding bail.

Section 2(b)(ii)(C) of the NDPS Act: Pertains to the possession, sale, purchase, transport, warehousing, use, consumption, import inter-State, export inter-State or import into India or export from India of narcotic drugs and psychotropic substances.

Section 42 of NDPS Act: Deals with the power of an authorized officer to seize drugs and substances, the procedure for making such seizure, and the safeguards to be followed.

Section 37 of NDPS Act: This section pertains to the presumption as to offences under certain sections of the Act, including the possession of illicit drugs in small quantities.

 

CONTENTIONS OF THE APPELLANT

The counsel appearing for the petitioner would vehemently contend that the petitioners are innocent and they have not committed the said offence. It is contended that the police arrested the accused Nos.1 to 3 from the native Orissa and fit the case against the present petitioners and implicated them in the present case. They have not transported the same as alleged by the prosecution. The entire CCB office is surrounded by the C.C.T.V footage but there is no description of parking of vehicle Infront of CCB office. No such transportation through the Cotton pet main road. The council also would vehemently contend that even an alleged mahazar is not in compliance with Section 42 of NDPS Act. It is also contended that the complainant police is not made any local witnesses as panchas and there is no bar to make them as local witnesses by seizing the same. The seizure of mahazar in police station is invalid. The counsel also would vehemently contend that these petitioners are in custody from last 10 months. The Counsel also submits that this Court has enlarged the accused persons in a similar set of facts wherein the seized ganja was to an extent of 122.60 Kgs of contraband narcotic substance having the market value of Rs.30,65,000/- was recovered from the vehicle since investigation has been completed and the petitioners are also entitled for bail.

CONTENTIONS OF THE RESPONDENTS

the counsel appearing for the State/respondent would contend that the seizure of ganja is 161 Kgs, the same is worth about Rs.1,40,00,000/- and also the counsel would vehemently contend that they are the residents of Orissa and they are not the local persons. Apart from that even the vehicle which is seized is registration of Orissa i.e., OD-24-J-5932. Hence, it is clear that the ganja is transported from Orissa to Bangalore. The counsel also would submit that along with 161 Kgs of ganja other articles were also seized by drawing the mahazar. The contention that not complied the mandatory provisions cannot be considered at this juncture and only Court has to take note of Section 37 of NDPS Act and accused persons have made out the case for granting the bail. Having heard the petitioners’ counsel and also the counsel appearing for the State/respondent and also the specific allegation made against the petitioners that they are the persons of Orissa origin and they are carrying contraband in their Swift Dezire car bearing No.OD-24-J 5932 considered the vehicle in which the ganja was seized is also having the registration of Orissa. It is also the case of the prosecution that they are the residents of Orissa and they transported the same. The fact that the ganja was seized in the conspicuous possession of these petitioners is not in dispute. It is also emerged during the investigation that the same was handed over by one Suresh to transport the same and admittedly the said Suresh was not arrested. No doubt this Court made an observation in the earlier order also that non arrest of the accused cannot be a ground to reject the same. But, in the case on hand, quantity of ganja seized is 161 Kgs and this Court granted bail in Crl.P.No.4619/2022 wherein the seized quantity is 122.60 Kgs. This Court earlier rejected the bail petition of the said petitioner. He is a resident of Karnataka and not from Outside. It is also important to note that the Court has to see the quantity of ganja seized and Orissa registration vehicle is involved in the incident for transportation of ganja and the quantity in this case is higher than the ganja seized in Crl.P.No.4619/2022, exercising the jurisdiction in respect of other case is concerned, the same cannot be a ground. The Court has to take note of the gravity of the offence as well as the offence is against the society at large, the ganja seized is more than 8 times of commercial quantity and they are in custody from last 8 months cannot be a ground to enlarge them on bail and it affects the society at large. Hence, the counsel for petitioners not made out any ground to enlarge them on bail.

COURT’S ANALYSIS AND JUDGEMENT

THIS CRL.P. IS FILED U/S.439 OF CR.P.C., PRAYING TO ENLARGE THE PETITIONERS ON BAIL IN SPL. C.C. No.637/2024 (CRIME No.359/2023) OF OFFENCE PUNISHABLE UNDER SECTION 20(b)(ii)(C) OF NDPS ACT, 1985, OF RESPONDENT COTTONPETE POLICE STATION, BANGALORE PENDING ON THE FILE BEFORE COURT OF THE CITY CIVIL AND SESSIONS JUDGE AND SPECIAL JUDGE, (NDPS), (CCH-33) AT BENGALURU, IN THE ENDS OF JUSTICE. Having heard the petitioners’ counsel and also the counsel appearing for the State/respondent and also the specific allegation made against the petitioners that they are the persons of Orissa origin and they are carrying contraband in their Swift Dezire car bearing No.OD-24-J 5932 considered the vehicle in which the ganja was seized is also having the registration of Orissa. It is also the case of the prosecution that they are the residents of Orissa and they transported the same. The fact that the ganja was seized in the conspicuous possession of these petitioners is not in dispute. It is also emerged during the investigation that the same was handed over by one Suresh to transport the same and admittedly the said Suresh was not arrested. No doubt this Court made an observation in the earlier order also that non arrest of the accused cannot be a ground to reject the same. But, in the case on hand, quantity of ganja seized is 161 Kgs and this Court granted bail in Crl.P.No.4619/2022 wherein the seized quantity is 122.60 Kgs. This Court earlier rejected the bail petition of the said petitioner. He is a resident of Karnataka and not from Outside. It is also important to note that the Court has to see the quantity of ganja seized and Orissa registration vehicle is involved in the incident for transportation of ganja and the quantity in this case is higher than the ganja seized in Crl.P.No.4619/2022, exercising the jurisdiction in respect of other case is concerned, the same cannot be a ground. The Court has to take note of the gravity of the offence as well as the offence is against the society at large, the ganja seized is more than 8 times of commercial quantity and they are in custody from last 8 months cannot be a ground to enlarge them on bail and it affects the society at large. Hence, the counsel for petitioners not made out any ground to enlarge them on bail. The Criminal Petition is Rejected.

“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.”

Judgement Reviewed by – HARIRAGHAVA JP

Click here to read the judgement

1 2