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
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.
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
2014 1 ALD 222
2010 1 ALD 812
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
