M/S S. S. Wood Timber Merchant vs. State Of Rajasthan

Facts

The petitioner, M/s S. S. Wood Timber Merchant, filed a criminal miscellaneous petition challenging an order dated 03.09.2021 by the Additional Sessions Judge, Banswara. This order partly allowed the petitioner's revision petition, setting aside a Judicial Magistrate's order dated 11.08.2021 which had rejected the petitioner's application for the release of seized woods under Sections 451/457 Cr.P.C. The revisional court imposed a condition for the release of woods: submission of a bank guarantee of Rs. 5 lacs. The petitioner argued that they had submitted all necessary documents, including a valid license, GST, and transport pass, and that the bank guarantee condition was harsh. The respondent contended that the weight of the seized goods exceeded the permissible limit mentioned in the transit pass, justifying the bank guarantee.

Held

The High Court partly allowed the petition by reducing the bank guarantee amount. The Court acknowledged the submissions of both parties and, taking into consideration the overall facts and circumstances, deemed it appropriate to reduce the bank guarantee from Rs. 5 lacs to Rs. 2,50,000/-. The Court held that the woods would be released in favour of the petitioner upon furnishing this reduced bank guarantee. All other conditions imposed by the revisional court were to remain intact. The Court did not expressly leave any issue undecided.

Key Issues

1. Whether the condition of furnishing a bank guarantee of Rs. 5 lacs for the release of seized woods, as imposed by the revisional court, is excessive and harsh, considering the petitioner has submitted valid licenses and documents including GST and transport pass, and if so, whether it should be waived or reduced? (Turning on principles of criminal procedure for release of seized property and proportionality of conditions). Petitioner's Contention: The petitioner argued that the imposition of a Rs. 5 lacs bank guarantee was very harsh, especially since they had provided all required documents, including a valid license, GST, and transport pass. They sought waiver or reduction of this condition. Respondent's Contention: The respondent opposed the prayer, arguing that the weight of the seized goods exceeded the permissible limit stated in the transit pass, and therefore, the revisional court was justified in imposing the condition of a Rs. 5 lacs bank guarantee.