M/S Jai Gurudeo Krishi Kendra Thr. ... vs The State Of Mah. Thr. Its ...
2022 Latest Caselaw 7993 Bom

                                  1



        IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY
                  NAGPUR BENCH, NAGPUR.

            CRIMINAL WRIT PETITION NO. 524/2022

        M/s. Jai Gurudeo Krishi Kendra, A
        proprietory concern, through proprietor
        Chandrashekhar Ganeshrao Thote, Aged
        34 years, Occ. Business, R/o. Mandolkar
        Wadi, near Bus Stop Kalamb, Dist.
        Yavatmal.

                                                  ... PETITIONER


                              VERSUS

   1.   The State of Maharashtra
        through its Secretary, the
        Agricultural Department,
        Mantralaya, Mumbai.

   2.   The District Superintending
        Agriculture Officer and Licensing
        Authority, Yavatmal.

   3.   The Office of the District
        Collector, District Yavatmal.



                                                  ... RESPONDENTS

_____________________________________________________________
       Mr. S. S. Ansari, Advocate for petitioner.
       Mrs. M. H. Deshmukh, APP for respondent Nos. 1 to 3.
______________________________________________________________

                 CORAM                      : VINAY JOSHI, J.

                 DATE OF JUDGMENT           : 18.08.2022.





ORAL JUDGMENT :

RULE. Rule is made returnable forthwith.

2. Heard finally by consent of respective parties.

3. The petitioner has impugned herein a condition imposed by

the Trial Court of furnishing bank guarantee while releasing seized

goods on Supratnama. The petitioner is proprietory concern carrying

business of fertilizers and pesticides. The District Agricultural Officer

has conducted raid and found that petitioner has stored fertilizers and

pesticides without maintaining proper stock register and accounts. In

consequences, those goods were seized and confiscated by the

authority. The petitioner filed appeal to the Sessions Court challenging

the confiscation. In the appeal, the Sessions Court though released the

goods on Supratnama, however one of the condition was to furnish

bank guarantee of Rs. 10,00,000/-.

4. The learned counsel appearing for the petitioner would

submit that from the year 2018, the petitioner is not doing business and

has become bankrupt. The petitioner is unable to furnish bank

guarantee and thus, goods are likely to ruin as are of perishable nature.

The learned APP states that having regard to the value of goods, the

bank guarantee has been properly directed to be furnished by the

Sessions Court. The order of releasing of goods was passed by the

Sessions Court on 07.04.2022 and for last four months, the petitioner is

unable to execute the order for the very reason of his incapacity to

furnish bank guarantee. There is no dispute that the goods are of

perishable nature. The Sessions Court has imposed several conditions

to secure the interest of prosecution. The condition of bank huarantee

appears to harsh. The purpose would be served, if solvent surety to the

extent of bank guarantee is furnished.

5. Having regard to above facts, the petition is allowed. The

impugned order dated 07.04.2022 is modified to the extent of

furnishing solvent surety to the tune of Rs. 10,00,000/- instead of bank

guarantee. Rest of the impugned order would remain as its stands.

6. Petition stands disposed of in above terms.

(VINAY JOSHI, J.)

Gohane Digitally signed by JITENDRA JITENDRA BHARAT BHARAT GOHANE GOHANE Date:

2022.08.19 15:49:23 +0530