Point of Law: While asking for deposit of amount for release of vehicle to interim custody even in terms of Rule 232-G of Karnataka Motor Vehicle Rules, Court will have to take into consideration probable value of vehicle and amount of security cannot be randomly fixed without any basis.

ORDER :

Revision petitioner/applicant-Sri. Mustafa s/o Maktumsab Rasoolanavar, feeling aggrieved by order passed by the trial Court on the file of IV Additional Senior Civil Judge and JMFC Court, Dharwad, dated 17.06.2023 ordering to deposit cash of Rs.5,00,000/-for release of interim custody of the tractor bearing registration No.KA.27/T-3132, preferred this revision petition.

2. Heard the argument of both sides.

3. On the strength of complaint filed by Mahesh S/o Somalingappa Pattanshetty criminal law was set into motion by registering case in Dharwad Rural P.S. in Crime No.138/2023 for the offences punishable under Sections 279, 283, 338, 304(A) of IPC. The tractor bearing registration No.KA-27/T-3132 and trailer bearing registration No.KA-25/EA-006146/2014-15 is seized and reported the seizer of the vehicle under P.F No.65/2023 dated 08.06.2023 to the Court. The applicant being the R.C. owner, filed application under Section 457 of Cr.P.C for releasing vehicle. The trial Court after hearing the arguments of both sides, by order dated 17.06.2023 has ordered to release the interim custody of the seized vehicle on depositing of Rs.5,00,000/-in Court towards the security in compliance of the Rule 232G of the Karnataka Motor Vehicle Rules and also to execute indemnity bond for the like sum amount subject to the conditions imposed by the trial Court.

4. Learned counsel representing the revision petitioner submits that there is no difficulty in offering the indemnity bond for like sum amount of Rs.5,00,000/-as ordered by the trial Court. The amount of Rs.5,00,000/-is ordered to be deposited in terms of Rule 232G of the Karnataka Motor Vehicle Rules is on higher side. Looking to the vehicle documents and photographs further in which condition vehicle was seized.

5. Per contra, learned HCGP seeks to justify the order of the trial Court on the premises that the vehicle has no any insurance coverage and there is prohibition in terms of Section 232G of the Karnataka Motor Vehicle Rules for release of vehicle involved in an accident.

6. There is no dispute that the seized tractor and trailer belongs to the applicant -R.C. owner. Therefore, trial Court has rightly ordered to release the interim custody of the seized tractor and trailer to the applicant R.C. owner.

7. Learned HCGP has contended that in terms of Section 397(2) of Cr.P.C revision petition itself is not maintainable as it is arising out of interim order passed by the trial Court . In support of such contention reliance is placed on the judgment of Madras High Court in K.BASHA VS. STATE THROUGH INSPECTOR OF POLICE CIVIL SUPPLIES, CID, TRICHY. In the said case before Hon’ble Madras High Court, the revision petition was filed challenging the order of trial Court in returning the petition filed under Section 451 of Cr.P.C. Therefore, it was held that revision petition against the order for “R.P. not received by this Court. Hence, return.” is not amenable to the revisional jurisdiction. The said factual aspect is not involved in the present case.

8. Learned HCGP has also relied another judgment of Hon’ble Kerala High Court in YADAV AGENCIES PVT. LTD VS. PHILOMINA AND ANOTHER reported in 1985 CRL.L.J. 1798 wherein it has been observed and held that an order passed under Section 451 of Cr.P.C. is an interlocutory order and the revision petition is held to be not maintainable.

9. Learned counsel for the revision petitioner relied on the co-ordinate bench judgment of this Court in T. NARAYANASWAMY VS. STATE AND OTHERS [1992 (4) KLJ 459] wherein it has been observed and held that:

“The order of the learned Magistrate granting interim custody of the vehicle to the petitioner cannot be said to be an interlocutory order and therefore the respondent No. 2 has challenged it by way of revision in the Court of the Prl. Sessions Judge, Shimoga, similarly, when the revision petition is decided against the petitioner, he has got a right to prefer a revision petition against that order which can