RAVI PRASAD NAYAK Vs. DEPUTY COMMISSIONER

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The petitioner filed the present writ petition seeking to quash the Order of the Deputy Commissioner in Crime No.117/2017 dated 21.08.2017, as per Annexure-G by rejecting the modification application filed by the petitioner and for a writ of mandamus vide Annexure-F dated 16.08.2017 directing the respondent authorities to permit the petitioner to furnish any other surety for the release of the vehicle.

(2.) It is the case of the petitioner that he is the owner of the lorry bearing Registration No.KA-20/D-3961 and he is dependent on the said vehicle as it is his only source of income. The Assistant Commissioner of Police, Davanagere, filed complaint against one Sri H.M. Umapathaiah and others for the offences punishable under Sections 307, 332, 353, 504 read with Section 34 of the Indian Penal Code and Sections 3 and 7 of the Essential Commodities Act, 1955. On the basis of the said complaint, the Davanagere Rural Police registered FIR in Crime No.117/2017. In the said proceedings, the lorry of the petitioner bearing Registration No.KA-20/D- 3961 was seized and therefore, petitioner filed an application under Section 457 of the Code of Criminal Procedure before the Deputy Commissioner, Davanagere, for release of the vehicle. The Deputy Commissioner allowed the application and ordered for interim custody of the vehicle in favour of the petitioner subject to petitioner furnishing the bank guarantee to the amount equivalent to Rs. 6,10,000/- vide intimation letter dated 17.07.2017. Since the petitioner was unable to furnish the bank guarantee and since the bank refused to issue such a guarantee, on 16.08.2017, the petitioner filed an application seeking modification of the Order requesting the Deputy Commissioner to permit him to furnish other type of surety. The Deputy Commissioner, by the impugned Order dated 21.08.2017, rejected the application for modification and informed the petitioner to furnish the bank guarantee, as ordered earlier. Hence, the present writ petition is filed.

(3.) The State Government filed objections and contended that in view of the provisions of Section 6- A(c) of the Essential Commodities Act, 1955, the Deputy Commissioner is justified in passing the impugned Order and therefore, sought for dismissal of the petition.