Final Order 1

Order Details: Order Below EX 1
Pdf Text: IN THE COURT OF METROPOLITAN MAGISTRATE,
32ND COURT, BANDRA, MUMBAI.
Notice No. 135/N/2020.
C.R. No. 33/2020.
Excise 'FSI' Division
CNR No.MHMM180008192020
Gurunath Jairam Sonsurkar … Applicant
V/s.
Sr. Inspector of Police,
(Excise 'FSI' Division) ...Respondent.
ORDER BELOW APPLICATION FOR RETURN OF PROPERTY
1. This is an application vide section 451 of Cr.P.C. for return
of seized motor car bearing No. MH02AU1322, Engine
No.L15A10005394, Chasis No.MAKGD853E6N305368.
2. Perused application, say of excise department. Heard.
3. Applicant sought custody of said car being in requirement
thereof, claiming that he is registered owner of the said vehicle. He is in
urgent need of the car and ready to abide by any conditions imposed.
4. Perused affidavit of the applicant. As per Section 98 of the
Bombay Prohibition Act, this car is liable for confiscation. As per section
99 of the said Act other than intoxicants, hemp mhowra flowers or
molasses anything liable for confiscation can be returned to the bonafide
owners, if such owner pay fine instead of confiscation. The vehicle
therefore can be returned presuming that the applicant is bonafide
owner. Time is required for trial. If the vehicle kept in a custody, same
will be junked and become worthless.
-- 1 of 3 --
2
5. The excise department opposed the application claiming
that property is liable for confiscation. There is possibility of repetition of
crime by use of same vehicle. It affects revenue of Government.
Investigation is pending. The excise department also relied upon the
decision of Hon'ble Bombay High Court, Bench at Nagpur in
Cr.Rev.appl.156/1993 to apply the guidelines for release of vehicle.
6. Excise department has not produced the copies of said
decision. However, it is argued that the guidelines are regarding
appropriate conditions including bank guarantee to be imposed. In case
of Jilani Nasruddin Gore Vs. State of Maharashtra 2005 (3) Mah.LJ
1058; the Hon'ble Bombay High court considered the Precedents on law
of return of property and imposing bank guarantee and confirmed the
order of bank guarantee of Rs.1 Lacs i.e. around 50% of the value of
vehicle seized. As such, if the vehicle is to be released the condition of
bank guarantee is to be imposed upto 50% value of the vehicle to secure
the vehicle for confiscation proceedings, if required.
7. The applicant alongwith his affidavit filed on record the
receipt of copy of insurance certificate & copy of registration of vehicle
and Aadhar card.
8. Perusal of documents, the applicant being primafacie shown
to be a bonafide owner entitled for interim custody. The value of the
seized motorcar as per the insurance certificate is Rs.4,30,000/.
Therefore, the bank guarantee of Rs.2,15,000/ has to be imposed
alongwith indemnity bond of Rs.2,15,000/. In view of this, the
application is allowed in following terms :
-- 2 of 3 --
3
ORDER
1 The seized motorcar bearing No. MH02AU1322 be
released in favor of applicant viz. motor car bearing No.
MH02AU1322 on his furnishing indemnity bond of
र. 2,15,000/ and bank guarantee of Rs.2,15,000/.
2 He shall produce the said motorcar as and when required
by the Court.
3 Investigation Officer shall obtain photographs of seized
vehicle from all angles for its proper identification in
future and prepared panchanama, which shall be the part
of chargesheet. The photographs and panchanama shall
be countersigned by the applicant/accused.
4 Investigating officer to verify engine and chasis number
before release of the vehicle.
5 Copy to the concerned Excise Division for compliance of
this order.
Date : 02.03.2020
ssl.
(Sudhir N. Shinde)
Metropolitan Magistrate, 32nd Court,
Bandra, Mumbai.
-- 3 of 3 --