The court emphasized that while trial courts have discretion in imposing penalties, such discretion must be exercised reasonably, considering the circumstances surrounding the violation.

ORDER :

S.B. Criminal Misc. (Pet.) No. 4332/2022:

1. By way of present petition under Section 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure (hereinafter referred to as 'the Code'), the petitioner has impugned the order dated 04.07.2022 passed by the Additional Sessions Judge No. 2, Jodhpur Metropolitan (hereinafter referred to as 'the Appellate Court'), whereby the order dated 13.06.2022 passed by the Additional Chief Judicial Metropolitan Magistrate (CBI Cases), Jodhpur Metropolitan (hereinafter referred to as 'the trial Court') has been affirmed by observing that there is no error in the order and that the trial Court could remit the fine by exercising its discretion.

2. Mr. Sharma, learned counsel for the petitioner apprised the Court about the antecedents facts and submitted that the petitioner's vehicle was released by order dated 03.07.2014 pursuant to his application under Section 457 of the Code. Before the decision of releasing the vehicle to the petitioner (owner of the vehicle) was taken, the Investigating Officer had sent his report that the vehicle was not required for any further investigation or trial of the case. It is to be noted that the vehicle was ordered to be released on condition of furnishing a supurdginama of Rs. 9,00,000/-.

3. It is the case of the present petitioner that on account of requirement of funds and change in the circumstances, he had to transfer the ownership of the vehicle to one Rajesh Singh Shekhawat on 17.03.2016.

4. On knowing the factum of transfer of the vehicle, the complainant moved an application before the trial Court for taking up appropriate proceedings inter alia avering that the present petitioner has violated the condition/term of the supurdginama by transferring the vehicle to one Rajesh Singh Shekhawat.

5. Pursuant to the intimation and the application so given, the trial Court passed an order dated 13.06.2022 finding the present petitioner to be flouting the terms of the supurdginama. Resultantly, the trial Court ordered the petitioner to pay a sum of Rs. 9,00,000/- equal to the amount of supurdginama.

6. While passing the order aforesaid, the trial Court did not record any finding about the conduct of the petitioner. On the other hand, the Court accepted the stand of the present petitioner that he was unaware of the legal provisions. It is pertinent to note that at the same time, the trial Court observed that if the petitioner so wished, he ought to have taken leave/permission of the trial Court before transferring the vehicle to said Rajesh Singh Shekhawat on 17.03.2016.

7. Against the order aforesaid, the petitioner moved to the appellate Court by way of preferring an appeal under Section 449 of the Code, which was registered as Appeal No. 08/2022 and the same was dismissed by order dated 04.07.2022.

8. While rejecting the appeal, learned appellate court observed that the discretion to levy penalty lies with the trial Court and the appellate court cannot interfere in exercise of such discretion, which order is subject matter of the present petition.

9. During the course of pendency of the present petition, on 20.07.2022, this Court permitted the petitioner to move an application under Section 446(3) of the Code for remission of penalty/fine while keeping the present petition pending.

10. Mr. Sharma, learned counsel pointed out that the petitioner has moved the application for remission of the penalty, in which the trial Court has issued a direction on 25.05.2023 to the petitioner to furnish a fresh supurdginama to the tune of Rs. 9,00,000/-.

11. Said order dated 23.05.2023 passed by the trial Court has been challenged by the petitioner by way of another petition being S.B. Criminal Misc. Petition 2954/2023 filed under Section 482 of the Code.

12. During the pendency of the proceedings of Section 446(3) of the Code, the complainant moved an application before the trial Court to hear him. Said application was rejected by the trial Court vide its order dated 28.04.2023 observing that remissi