Telangana High Court
Mr.Majid Hussain vs The State Of Telangana on 21 June, 2024
THE HONOURABLE SMT JUSTICE K. SUJANA
CRIMINAL PETITION No.6110 of 2024
ORAL ORDER:
This Criminal Petition is filed under Section 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 (for short 'Cr.P.C.') by the petitioner against the order dated 30.05.2024 passed in Crl.M.P.No.262 of 2024 in Crime No.75 of 2024 on the file of Special Judicial Magistrate of First Class (Prohibition and Excise Offences) at Nalgonda, Nalgonda District.
2. By the impugned order, the petition filed under Section 451 of Cr.P.C., by the petitioner/owner of the property praying to release the lorry bearing No.RJ 09 GC 0788 with granite load was partly allowed, directing that the lorry bearing No.RJ 09 GC 0788 be returned to the petitioner, subject to petitioner executing a personal bond for Rs.10,00,000/- (Rupees Ten Lakhs) with one surety for the like sum each to the satisfaction of the trial Court and certain other conditions. However, the petition was dismissed with regard to the release of seized granite that was stored in the said vehicle stating that the 2 owner of seized granite on whose name the invoices are generated has not filed any petition for release of the seized granite and has also not given any authorization to the petitioner or to the transporter for taking the release of the same for interim custody. Aggrieved thereby, this petition is filed.
3. Heard Sri P.Girish Kumar, learned senior counsel representing Sri Leo Raj, learned counsel for petitioner, and Sri Rudresh Deshpande, learned counsel representing the Office of learned Public Prosecutor, for respondent - State.
4. Learned senior counsel appearing for petitioner submitted that the petitioner being the bailee is under obligation to deliver the goods to the consignee and that being so, he is entitled to seek release of the goods that were present along with his vehicle bearing No.RJ 09 GC 0788. He contended that there is no complaint from the authorized Officer of the State, as mandated under Section 22 of the Mines and Minerals (Development and Regulation) Act, 1957, and in such circumstances, the petitioner cannot be refused to the relief as sought for. 3
5. Learned senior counsel asserted that the Mining Department has no power to seize the processed or finished product treating it as mineral as per the judgment of the High Court of Andhra Pradesh in Siva Sai Granites Vs. Government of Andhra Pradesh 1, whereunder, the case of Noval Granites Vs. State of Andhra Pradesh 2 was cited. He reiterated that petitioner being the bailee is under obligation to deliver the goods to the consignee. Therefore, prayed this Court to allow the criminal petition and also to relax the condition to execute bond of Rs.10,00,000/- with one surety.
6. Considering the submissions made by the learned counsel for the petitioner and having regard to the judgment rendered in the case of Siva Sai Granites (supra
1) this Court deems it fit to direct the trial Court to release the seized granite along with the lorry bearing No.RJ 09 GC 0788 to the petitioner by imposing appropriate conditions. Further, on considering the circumstances of this case, this Court is inclined to relax the condition imposed by the trial Court only to the extent 1 2014 1 ALD 222 2 2010 1 ALD 812 4 of executing personal bond i.e., from Rs.10,00,000/- (Rupees Ten Lakhs) to Rs.5,00,000/- (Rupees Five Lakhs only) with one surety for the like sum each to the satisfaction of the trial Court, by reducing the same.
7. Accordingly, the Criminal Petition is disposed of directing the trial Court to release the seized granite by imposing appropriate conditions.
Miscellaneous applications, if any pending, shall also stand closed.
_______________ K. SUJANA, J Date: 21.06.2024 Note: Issue C.C., by 22.06.2024.
B/o.
PT