THE STATE OF KARNATAKA vs MR. LATHESH

Court
Karnataka High Court

- 1 -
HC-KAR
NC: 2026:KHC:58160
CRL.P No. 7203 of 2019


CNR: KAHC010303972019




IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU

TH
DATED THIS THE 14 DAY OF OCTOBER, 2026


BEFORE

THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE H.P.SANDESH


CRIMINAL PETITION NO.7203 OF 2019

BETWEEN:

1. THE STATE OF KARNATAKA
DR. MAHADESWARA H.S.
GEOLOGIST, DEPT. OF MINES AND GEOLOGY
RAJATADRI, MANIPAL, UDUPI DISTRICT
REPRESENTED BY STATE PUBLIC PROSECUTOR
HIGH COURT BUILDING
BENGALURU-560 001.
…PETITIONER

(BY SRI. SUHAS GOWDA M., HCGP)
AND:

1. MR. LATHESH
AGED ABOUT 35 YEARS
S/O SHEENA SHETTY
RESIDING AT NO.186
KUKKUDE MANE, MUNDOOR
BELTHANGADI TALUK
D.K. DISTRICT.
…RESPONDENT

(RESPONDENT SERVED)

THIS CRIMINAL PETITION IS FILED UNDER SECTION 482









Digitally signed
by DEVIKA M
Location: HIGH
COURT OF
KARNATAKA

OF CR.PC PRAYING TO SET ASIDE THE ORDER DATED
28.11.2018 PASSED BY THE PRINCIPAL CIVIL JUDGE AND
JMFC, KARKALA, IN P.C.NO.329/2018.

- 2 -
HC-KAR
NC: 2026:KHC:58160
CRL.P No. 7203 of 2019


CNR: KAHC010303972019


THIS PETITION COMING ON FOR ADMISSION THIS DAY,
ORDER WAS MADE THEREIN AS UNDER:

CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE H.P.SANDESH

ORAL ORDER
Heard learned High Court Government Pleader for the
petitioner-State. The respondent is served and unrepresented.
2. The prayer is sought to set aside the order passed
by the Trial Court dated 28.11.2018 passed by the Principal
Civil Judge and JMFC, Karkala in P.C.No.329/2018 and pass
such other order as deems fit in the circumstances of the case.
3. Learned High Court Government Pleader appearing
for the petitioner-State brought to notice of this Court order
passed by the Trial Court in P.C.No.329/2018 i.e., operative
portion which reads as hereunder:
“ORDER
The application filed under Section 451 and 457 of
Cr.P.C. is allowed, subject to following conditions:
1. It is ordered to release the Lorry bearing
Reg.No.KA-21-A-2152 seized under

- 3 -
HC-KAR
NC: 2026:KHC:58160
CRL.P No. 7203 of 2019


CNR: KAHC010303972019


P.F.No.34/2018-19 by Department of Mines
and Geology, Rajatadri, Manipal, in favour of
the applicant on executing an individual bond
of Rs.6,02,050/- (Rupees Six Lakhs Two
Thousand Fifty) with two solvent surety for
the like sum.
2. The applicant shall not transfer, change or
alter the type of vehicle without permission of
the court.
3. The applicant shall produce the said vehicle
before the Hon’ble Sessions Court, whenever
ordered to do so.

4. The PSI of Karkala Town Police who is having
custody of said vehicle is hereby directed to
draw the panchanama and take clear
photographs of the vehicle and produce
before this court.
5. The applicant has to endorse that he will not
dispute the identity of the said vehicle at the
time of trial and to that effect he has to file
an affidavit before the court.
Issue release order subject to execution of
indemnity bond for Rs.6,02,050/- and two
surety for the like sum”.
4. The main contention of learned High Court
Government Pleader appearing for the petitioner-State is that

- 4 -
HC-KAR
NC: 2026:KHC:58160
CRL.P No. 7203 of 2019


CNR: KAHC010303972019


the Trial Court while passing such an order failed to take note
of Special provisions under Rule 43(8) of Karnataka Minor
Mineral Concession Rules, 1994 (‘KMMCR Rules’ for short)
wherein the need for obtaining adequate security in the form of
renewal of Bank Guarantee has been contemplated. The
statement of objections also reveals that such offences which
affect environment and are offences against the Society at
large and ought to be dealt with sternly and the said order is
passed against the rule. Hence, it requires interference.
5. This Court also would like to extract the very
proviso which was also brought to notice of the Trial Court
before passing such an order and the same is extracted by the
Trial Court in paragraph No.9 which reads as hereunder:
“ (8) No release of the vehicle which shall however
not include the minor mineral so seized shall be
made unless there is an execution by the owner
thereof, of security in the form of a renewable Bank
Guarantee, of an amount equal to double the value
of such vehicle, before the Competent Court having
jurisdiction to try the offence on account of which
the seizure has been made:

- 5 -
HC-KAR
NC: 2026:KHC:58160
CRL.P No. 7203 of 2019


CNR: KAHC010303972019


Provided that where a report has been made to the
Competent Court under sub-rule(7) the seized
vehicle shall not be released except under the
orders of such Court”.
6. Having perused Rule 43(8) of KMMCR Rules, it
manifests that no vehicle shall be released in mines and
mineral offences, except minor mineral so seized, but on
execution of security in the form of a renewal of Bank
Guarantee of an amount equal to double the value of such
vehicle may be released. The Trial Court failed to take note of
the very rule and relies upon the judgment passed in
Crl.P.No.6776/2017, wherein it is held that in MMRD Act, there
is no specific provision empowering the Court to impose Bank
Guarantee to the petitioner and such observation is erroneous
in view of the fact that Rule 43(8) KMMCR Rules prescribes that
no release of the vehicle which shall however not include the
minor mineral so seized shall be made unless there is an
execution by the owner thereof, of security in the form of a
renewable Bank Guarantee, of an amount equal to double the
value of such vehicle, before the Competent Court having
jurisdiction to try the offence on account of which the seizure

- 6 -
HC-KAR
NC: 2026:KHC:58160
CRL.P No. 7203 of 2019


CNR: KAHC010303972019


has been made and specific further proviso is also made that
where a report has been made to the Competent Court under
sub-rule (7) the seized vehicle shall not be released except
under the orders of such Court.
7. Having considered the said proviso, it is very clear
that learned Trial Judge has committed an error. Hence, it
requires modification of the order and conditions are to be
modified. The condition No.1 is against Rule 43(8) of KMMCR
Rules and condition Nos.2, 3, 4 and 5 shall prevail. But, learned
High Court Government Pleader for the petitioner-State brought
to notice of this Court that already vehicle was released after
obtaining the bond as ordered. Hence, it requires modification.
8. In view of the discussion made above, I pass the
following:
ORDER

(i) The criminal petition is disposed of.

(ii) In view Rule 43(8) of KMMCR Rules, the
respondent is directed to furnish renewable
Bank Guarantee as security of an amount equal
to double the value of such vehicle before the

- 7 -
HC-KAR
NC: 2026:KHC:58160
CRL.P No. 7203 of 2019


CNR: KAHC010303972019


Competent Court within one month from today
and other conditions are unaltered as
observed.



Sd/-
(H.P.SANDESH)
JUDGE


ST
List No.: 1 Sl No.: 12