The State Of Maharashtra vs. Mahabal Enterprises Thorugh Its Manager Mr. Deepak Madan Mohan Vishwadeva

Held

The Court held that the goods, though banned for transport within Maharashtra, were intended for inter-state transit from Haryana to Karnataka. The Court noted that the 'best before' date is not a strict expiry date and the goods could still be consumed. Citing previous judgments where similar goods were released upon furnishing a bank guarantee, the Court found it in the interest of justice to impose such a condition. The Sessions Court's order was modified to include an additional condition that the respondent furnish a bank guarantee of Rs.27,84,000/- instead of an indemnity bond of Rs.61,44,000/-. The Court did not expressly leave any issue undecided, but the modification of the Sessions Court's order indicates a compromise between the State's concerns and the respondent's right to property.

Facts

The State of Maharashtra filed a criminal writ petition challenging an order dated 16.09.2022 by the Sessions Judge, Dhule, which allowed a revision application and directed the release of seized Gutka/Pan-Masala. The goods were seized on 04.01.2022. The respondent was transporting these goods, which are banned in Maharashtra by a notification dated 15.07.2021. The Judicial Magistrate First Class had previously rejected the respondent's application for release of goods. The State argued that the goods had expired and their transport was banned. The respondent contended that the 'best before' date was not an expiry date, the goods were intended for inter-state transport from Haryana to Karnataka, and GST had been paid. The respondent also pointed to previous High Court orders allowing release of similar goods with conditions.

Key Issues

1. Whether the goods seized, being Gutka/Pan-Masala banned for sale and transport within Maharashtra, could be released by the Sessions Court, considering the State's notification prohibiting such items. 2. Whether the 'best before' date of the goods, manufactured in December 2021 with a six-month validity, rendered them expired and thus ineligible for release, especially given the delay in challenging the JMFC's order. Petitioner (State) argued that the goods were banned for transport within Maharashtra, had expired, and the Sessions Court erred in not considering these facts. The State relied on a previous judgment of this Court in Criminal Writ Petition No.543/2020. Respondent argued that the 'best before' date does not equate to expiry, the goods were destined for inter-state transport (Haryana to Karnataka) and the route necessarily passed through Maharashtra, GST had been paid, and they were the owners of the goods. The respondent relied on a previous order in Criminal Writ Petition No.739/2021, which allowed release of similar goods upon furnishing a bank guarantee.