Legal Document View

Unlock Advanced Research with PRISMAI

- Know your Kanoon - Doc Gen Hub - Counter Argument - Case Predict AI - Talk with IK Doc - ...
Upgrade to Premium
[Cites 1, Cited by 0]

Gujarat High Court

Darcl Logistic Limited Thro' P.O.A. ... vs State Of Gujarat on 12 July, 2017

Author: A.J.Desai

Bench: A.J.Desai

                  R/CR.MA/15659/2016                                                  ORDER



                   IN THE HIGH COURT OF GUJARAT AT AHMEDABAD

              CRIMINAL MISC.APPLICATION (FOR MODIFICATION ORDERS) NO.
                                         15659 of 2016
         ==========================================================
            DARCL LOGISTIC LIMITED THRO' P.O.A. ANILKUMAR OMPRAKASH
                                 JAIN....Applicant(s)
                                       Versus
                        STATE OF GUJARAT....Respondent(s)
         ==========================================================
         Appearance:
         MR JAGDHISH SATAPARA, ADVOCATE for the Applicant(s) No. 1
         MR LB DABHI, LD.ADDL.PUBLIC PROSECUTOR for the Respondent No. 1
         ==========================================================
          CORAM: HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE A.J.DESAI

                                        Date : 12/07/2017


                                         ORAL ORDER

1. Rule. Mr.L.B.Dabhi, learned Additional Public Prosecutor waives service of Rule on behalf of the respondent- State of Gujarat.

2. With the consent of the learned advocates appearing on behalf of the respective parties, the matter is taken up for final hearing today.

3. It is the case of the petitioner that when his consignment of medicines worth Rs.85,55,595/- was being transported, other accused persons have loaded some illegal liquor in the vehicle. During transfer, the said vehicle was intercepted and illegal liquor was found by the police and therefore, an offence being Prohibition C.R.No.5110 of 2015 was registered with Ramol Police Station for the offence punishable u/s.66(B), 65(A), 81, 116(1) of the Bombay Page 1 of 3 HC-NIC Page 1 of 3 Created On Sun Jul 23 17:39:09 IST 2017 R/CR.MA/15659/2016 ORDER Prohibition Act. Since the vehicle was involved in the crime, the medicines of the petitioner was seized along with illegal liquor. The petitioner filed an application to release the goods before learned City Civil and Sessions Court, Ahmedabad, which was allowed vide order dated 17/07/2015. However, learned Sessions Judge asked the petitioner to provide Bank Guarantee to the tune of 2.5 times of worth of medicines.

The said order was challenged before this Court by way of filing petition being Special Criminal Application No.5708 of 2015, in which, the petitioner was permitted to withdraw the same with a liberty to prefer appropriate application for modification of the condition before the trial court. Subsequent to the said order, application for modification was submitted by the petitioner. However, learned Trial Court as well as learned Appellate Court has not decided the matter on merits and the matter is being sent to either of the courts. Hence, this petition.

4. Learned advocate appearing for the petitioner would submit that the medicines belong to the petitioner are not necessary muddamal for trial and, therefore, rightly released by the trial court by imposing such condition of Bank Guarantee to the tune of 2.5 times of worth of medicines, which is on higher side. He would submit that since the medicines were required by the petitioner, such Bank Guarantee was produced and goods were released. Now, he would submit that an appropriate order may be passed to decrease the amount of Bank Guarantee.

5. Mr.L.B.Dabhi, learned APP appearing for the respondent-State has opposed this petition and submitted that Page 2 of 3 HC-NIC Page 2 of 3 Created On Sun Jul 23 17:39:09 IST 2017 R/CR.MA/15659/2016 ORDER learned Revisional Court has rightly imposed condition and, therefore, this application may be dismissed.

6. I have heard learned advocates appearing for the respective parties and perused the impugned orders. Considering the fact that medicines would not be necessary muddamal for the trial and no offence is made, which is punishable under the Prohibition Act, in my opinion, following order would meet the ends of justice:

"The impugned order dated 17/07/2015 passed by  learned   City   Civil   and   Sessions   Judge,   Court  No.4,   Ahmedabad   in   Criminal   Revision  Application No.223 of 2015 is hereby modified  to the extend that an amount of Bank Guarantee  would be to the tune of Rs.10,00,000/­ (Rupees  Ten Lacs) only." 

Rule is made absolute to the aforesaid extent. Direct service is permitted.

[A.J.DESAI,J.] *dipti Page 3 of 3 HC-NIC Page 3 of 3 Created On Sun Jul 23 17:39:09 IST 2017