M/S Om Sai Trading Company And Anr vs. The State Of Assam And Anr

Held

The Court decided to modify the impugned order of the learned Additional Sessions Judge. Instead of requiring the petitioners to furnish bank guarantees, the Court directed that the petitioners shall furnish Indemnity Bonds of equal value as determined by the learned Court below in its order dated 30.08.2022, passed in Criminal Revision Case No. 42/2022. The reasoning was based on considering the grounds cited in the petition and the annexed documents, aiming to provide relief to the petitioners who found the bank guarantee amounts to be huge. The Court further directed that the petitioners shall mention their Bank Account numbers, enclosing therewith the initial relevant pages of such Bank Passbooks, or in lieu thereof, land documents may also be furnished, and the same shall be mentioned in the Indemnity Bond. The ratio decidendi is that in cases where legitimate businesses are involved and the seized goods are to be returned to their custody, an indemnity bond secured by relevant financial or property documents can serve as adequate security, thereby avoiding undue financial strain on the petitioners through bank guarantees.

Facts

The petitioners, M/s Om Sai Trading Company and M/s S.N. Trading Company, are proprietors/partnerships engaged in the trading of dried areca nuts. On February 10, 2022, two trucks carrying areca nuts belonging to the petitioners were seized by the police in connection with Changsari P.S. Case No. 77/2022, registered under Sections 120B/379/411/465/468/471 of the IPC. Subsequently, the seized trucks were burnt, leading to Changsari P.S. Case No. 78/22 under Sections 436/427/201/34 of the IPC. The Additional Sessions Judge, Kamrup, Amingaon, in Criminal Revision Case No. 42/2022, ordered the zimma (custody) of the seized goods to the petitioners but directed them to furnish bank guarantees of Rs. 47,22,375/- and Rs. 49,65,480/- respectively. The petitioners filed a criminal petition under Section 482 Cr.P.C. seeking modification of this order to remove the bank guarantee condition and allow zimma upon execution of indemnity bonds.

Key Issues

1. Whether the condition of furnishing bank guarantees of substantial amounts, as imposed by the learned Additional Sessions Judge, Kamrup, Amingaon, is excessive and warrants modification in light of the petitioners' financial capacity and business operations, thereby impacting the ends of justice? Contentions of the Petitioner: The petitioners argued that the imposed bank guarantees of Rs. 47,22,375/- and Rs. 49,65,480/- are excessively high and place an undue financial burden on them. They contended that they are legitimate businesses with valid GST registrations, trade licenses, and PAN numbers, and have been operating lawfully. They sought to have the bank guarantee condition removed and to be allowed to take zimma of the seized goods upon furnishing indemnity bonds of equivalent value, which would be a more equitable and practical solution. They relied on the principle that justice should be served without causing undue hardship to legitimate businesses. Contentions of the Respondent: The State respondent, represented by the learned Addl. P.P., Assam, did not record any specific arguments against the modification of the bank guarantee condition in the provided judgment excerpt. The judgment indicates that the court heard both sides, but the specific arguments or contentions of the State are not detailed.