Supreme Court - Daily Orders
Cj Darcl Logistics Ltd vs The State Of Gujarat on 21 October, 2024
1
IN THE SUPREME COURT OF INDIA
CRIMINAL APPELLATE JURISDICTION
CRIMINAL APPEAL NO. OF 2024
(Arising out of SLP(Crl.) No. 1923/2024)
CJ DARCL LOGISTICS LTD. Appellant(s)
VERSUS
THE STATE OF GUJARAT Respondent(s)
O R D E R
1. Leave granted.
2. The facts lie in a narrow compass. The appellant moved the High Court under Articles 226 and 227 of the Constitution of India read with Section 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 seeking release of consignments being 1752 boxes of Head & Shoulders, Pantene Product Shampoo having value of Rs. 76,84,223/-, 10 boxes of O.C. Lime Shaving Cream having value of Rs. 56,546/- and 589 boxes Signature Not Verified containing various products and blades of Digitally signed by DEEPAK SINGH Date: 2024.10.25 17:05:00 IST Reason: Gillette Company having value of Rs. 68,13,825/-.
3. It is undisputed that the police personnel, 2 while patrolling, received a secret information of certain vehicles carrying liquor and when the vehicle in question is intercepted, liquor was found and the FIR was registered.
4. However, the case of the appellant is that the consignment is not the contraband involved and the appellant was a bona fide consignor and has nothing to do with the seizure of the contraband .
5. The High Court has finding merits in the plea directed release of the said consignment. The High Court has ordered the appellant to furnish a bank guarantee equivalent to the value of the Muddamal shown in the FIR.
6. The operated part of the High Court order is as follows:
“7. Resultantly, this petition is allowed. The learned Trial Court/authority concerned is directed to release the muddamal consignments being 1752 boxes of Hair & Shoulders, Pantene Product Shampoo having value of Rs. 76,84,223/-, 10 boxes of O.C. Lime Shaving Cream having value of Rs.56,546/- and 589 boxes containing various products and blades of Gillette Company having value of Rs.68,13,825/- subject to the condition that the petitioner shall:
(i) furnish the bank guarantee equivalent to the value of the muddamal shown in the FIR, which shall be maintained till the 3 completion of the trial;”
7. Learned counsel for the appellant submits that furnishing of bank guarantee is very onerous when the appellant is not an accused and the consignment involved is not part of the contraband.
8. We have heard learned counsel for the State.
9. We feel that the order for bank guarantee (which has since been furnished till 03.11.2024 is onerous. The bank guarantee shall remain till it expires on 03.11.2024.
10. Thereafter, the appellant will ensure that they furnish a personal bond to the trial Court/authority concerned (if not already furnished) for the value of the goods and file an undertaking that they will not dispute the identity of the goods.
11. With the above observations, the appeal is allowed. The impugned judgment and order dated 01.11.2023 passed by the High Court is modified to that extent indicated hereinabove. No order to as to costs.
4
12. Pending application(s), if any, shall stand disposed of.
….........................J (K.V. VISWANATHAN) ...........................J (NONGMEIKAPAM KOTISWAR SINGH) New Delhi October 21, 2024 5 ITEM NO.39 COURT NO.3 SECTION II-B S U P R E M E C O U R T O F I N D I A RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS Petition(s) for Special Leave to Appeal (Crl.) No(s). 1923/2024 (Arising out of impugned final judgment and order dated 01-11-2023 in SCRLA No. 13975/2023 passed by the High Court of Gujarat at Ahmedabad) CJ DARCL LOGISTICS LTD. Petitioner(s) VERSUS THE STATE OF GUJARAT Respondent(s) (IA No. 32629/2024 - EXEMPTION FROM FILING C/C OF THE IMPUGNED JUDGMENT AND IA No. 32624/2024 - EXEMPTION FROM FILING O.T.) Date : 21-10-2024 These matters were called on for hearing today. CORAM :
HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE K.V. VISWANATHAN HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE NONGMEIKAPAM KOTISWAR SINGH For Petitioner(s) Mr. Ravindra Sadanand Chingale, AOR Mr. Anil Goel, Adv.
Dr. Ravindra Chingale, Adv. Mr. Aditya Goel, Adv.
Ms. Sumbul Ausaf, Adv.
Dr. Rakesh Kumar, Adv.
For Respondent(s) Ms. Deepanwita Priyanka, Adv. Ms. Swati Ghildiyal, AOR Ms. Devyani Bhatt, Adv.
Mr. Rishi Yadav, Adv.
UPON hearing the counsel the Court made the following O R D E R
1. Leave granted.
2. The appeal is allowed in terms of the signed order.
3. Pending application(s), if any, stand(s) disposed of.
(DEEPAK SINGH) (ANJU KAPOOR) ASTT. REGISTRAR-cum-PS COURT MASTER (NSH)
[Signed order is placed on the file] 6