Sunil Gangwal ( Jain) S/O Shri Manak Chand Jain vs. State Of Rajasthan

Held

The Court held that after the submission of the fact-finding report by the Additional S.P., there was no occasion for the learned Courts below to have waited for the result of the FSL report for the purpose of releasing the seized goods and reopening the factory. The Court found that, prima facie, there was no complaint whatsoever from any quarter against the petitioner or his company that necessitated the continued seizure and closure. Therefore, the Court allowed the petition, directing the concerned authorities to immediately release the seized goods and open the factory, subject to the petitioner furnishing a bond of Rs. 50,000/- along with one surety of like amount. The Court did not expressly leave any issue undecided.

Facts

The petitioner, Sunil Gangwal, is the Director of Anil Petro Lube Pvt. Ltd., a company engaged in recycling lubricant oils and grease. The company possessed necessary permissions from the Government of Rajasthan and the District Industry Centre, along with GST, Udyog Aadhar, and PAN numbers. The SHO of Police Station Madanganj seized the company's plant and premises, registering an FIR under Sections 285, 420 IPC, and Sections 3/7 of the E.C. Act, 1955, and Sections 4/5 of the Petroleum Act, 1934. A fact-finding report by the Additional S.P. found no case made out under Sections 285 IPC, 3/7 E.C. Act, or 4/5 Petroleum Act, while the case under Section 420 IPC was contingent on an FSL report. The petitioner's application for the release of seized materials and opening of the factory was rejected by the Senior Civil Judge & ACJM, and a subsequent revision petition was also rejected by the Additional District & Sessions Judge.

Key Issues

1. Whether the learned Courts below erred in rejecting the petitioner's application for the release of seized goods and opening of the factory, despite a fact-finding report indicating no prima facie case under certain sections of the IPC and other Acts? Petitioner's Argument: The petitioner argued that following the Additional S.P.'s report, which found no case under Sections 285 IPC, 3/7 E.C. Act, or 4/5 Petroleum Act, there was no justification for the lower courts to delay the release of goods and reopening of the factory, pending an FSL report for the Section 420 IPC charge. The petitioner also highlighted that the SHO's inspection and FIR were suo motu without any prior complaint. Respondent's Argument: The respondent (State of Rajasthan) did not present any arguments in the judgment.