Final Order 1

Order Details: Order Below EX 1
Pdf Text: IN THE COURT OF METROPOLITAN MAGISTRATE,
32ND COURT, BANDRA, MUMBAI.
Notice No. 158/N/2020.
C.R. No. 10/2020.
Excise 'T' Division
CNR No.MHMM180009322020
Vinod Sudam Jadhav … Applicant
V/s.
Sr. Inspector of Police,
(Excise 'T' 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 autorickshaw bearing No. MH47AJ5949.
2. Perused application, say of excise department. Heard.
3. Applicant sought custody of said rickshaw being in
requirement thereof, claiming that he is registered owner of the said
vehicle. Accused was carrying illicit liquor from his autorickshaw,
without his knowledge and therefore, they were arrested by Excise
Department.
4. Perused affidavit of the applicant. As per Section 98 of the
Bombay Prohibition Act, this rickshaw 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 Aurangabad in
Cr.Rev.appl.670, 671/2002, 1096/2002 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,
copy of permit 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 rickshaw as per the insurance certificate is Rs.2,00,000/.
Therefore, the bank guarantee of Rs.1,00,000/ has to be imposed
alongwith indemnity bond of Rs.1,00,000/. In view of this, the
application is allowed in following terms :
-- 2 of 3 --
3
ORDER
1 The seized autorickshaw bearing No. MH47AJ5949 be
released in favor of applicant viz. Vinod Sudam Jadhav
on his furnishing indemnity bond of र. 1,00,000/ and
bank guarantee of Rs.1,00,000/.
2 He shall produce the said autorickshaw 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 : 03.03.2020
ssl.
(Sudhir N. Shinde)
Metropolitan Magistrate, 32nd Court,
Bandra, Mumbai.
-- 3 of 3 --