The court has inherent jurisdiction to set aside harsh conditions for the release of seized property and can direct alternative forms of security.

ORDER :

The present application under section 482 of Criminal Procedure Code, has been filed by the applicant for invoking, the inherent jurisdiction, against the impugned order dated 28-9-2016, passed in Case No./Ex./Court/2016/1483, by the Collector Chhindwara, District Chhindwara (MP), whereby learned Collector has released the vehicle (Swift Car) of the applicant bearing registration No. MP-28-C/9355 on supurdnama with a condition to furnish bank guarantee of Rs. 5,00,000/- (Rupees Five Lakhs) by the applicant.

2. Briefly stated facts of the prosecution case is that the applicant is the registered owner of aforesaid vehicle (Swift Car), which was seized by the Excise Department Circle Chhindwara No. 2, for illegal transportation of 180 bulk litres liquor. Thereupon, police has registered the case vide Crime No. 1232/2016 for offence punishable under section 34(2) of Excise Act, against the accused person and seized the liquor as well as aforesaid vehicle. The accused persons were sent to judicial custody and after completion of investigation, police had produced the charge-sheet before the concerned Magistrate. Thereafter, the applicant applied for releasing the said vehicle before the Collector Chhindwara. Thereafter, Assistant Excise Commissioner District Chhindwara has written a letter on 6-4-2016 to SDO (PWD) District Chhindwara, for proper valuation of the vehicle of the applicant.

3. On 28-9-2016, The Collector Chhindwara after hearing the application of the applicant, on the valuation of SDO (PWD), according to whom, the value of said vehicle at the relevant time, was Rs. 5,00,000/- (Rupees Five Lakhs), ordered to release the said vehicle on supurdnama, on furnishing a bank guarantee of Rs. 5,00,000/- (Rupees Five Lakhs). Aggrieved by this order, the applicant has filed this application under section 482 of Criminal Procedure Code, for invoking inherent jurisdiction.

4. Learned counsel for the applicant submits that imposing such condition is depriving of handing over the vehicle on supurdnama to the applicant and ends of justice will be served if the stringent and onerous condition furnishing bank guarantee is dispensed with in this case. He further submits that the learned Collector without considering the factual aspects in the matter has imposed the harsh condition of furnishing bank guarantee of Rs. 5 lakhs. Even, learned SDO(PWD) has not assessed the proper value of the vehicle of the applicant. Learned counsel for the applicant has relied upon a decision of Chhattisgarh High Court in the case of Vishal Agrawal vs. State of Chhattisgarh, 2003 (2) MPHT 46 (CG) wherein it is observed that :—

“Code of Criminal Procedure (2 of 1974), sections 451 and 457 — Handing over the vehicle on supurdnama — Condition imposed to furnish security of Rs. 4 lakhs and bank guarantee of Rs. 1 lakh — Petition for releasing the vehicle on furnishing security (Supurdnama) instead of bank guarantee — Held — Ends of justice will be served if the stringent and onerous condition of furnishing bank guarantee is dispensed with in this case. 2002 AIR SCW 5301, followed.”

5. Shri Shroti, learned Panel Lawyer for the respondent/State has submitted that impugned order passed by the Collector is just and proper because the SDO (PWD) has assessed the proper value of the said vehicle. Thus, there is no error apparent in the impugned order. He, therefore, prays for dismissal of the application.

6. After hearing the submission of learned counsel for the parties and keeping in view that the applicant is the registered owner of the vehicle and imposing of furnishing bank guarantee to the extent of Rs. 5 lakhs would be too harsh, it would be appropriate to direct the applicant to furnish security (Supurdnama) instead of bank guarantee. End of justice will be served if the stringent and onerous condition of furnishing bank guarantee is dispensed with in this case. Accordingly, the application filed by the applicant under section 482 of Criminal Procedure Code