HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE G.BHAVANI PRASAD CRIMINAL PETITION No.5247 of 2009 DATED:17.08.2009 Between: M/s. Wipro Limited, D.No.11-14-160/1, L.B.Nagar Main Road, L.B.Nagar, Hyderabad, Rep., by its Power of Attorney Holdcer Mr.Y.N.Kumar Rao .. Petitioner And The State of Andhra Pradesh, rep., by its Police of L.B.Nagar, Ranra Reddy District, rep by its Public Prosecutor, High Court of A.P., Hyderabad .. Respondent THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE G.BHAVANI PRASAD CRIMINAL PETITION No.5247 of 2009 ORDER: Heard Sri P.Srinivas, learned counsel representing Sri N.Harinath, learned counsel for the petitioner and Sri A.Ramesh, learned counsel representing the learned Public Prosecutor for the sole respondent. The petitioner happens to be the de facto complainant in Cr.No.1112 of 2008 of L.B.Nagar Police Station, who complained about the lorry with 16 tonnes of Santoor soaps, worth Rs.14,55,926/- not reaching the destination from the factory of the petitioner manufacturer. The lorry was stated to have been seized by the police along with the goods and the petitioner filed Crl.M.P.No.1931 of 2008 for return of the soaps. The trial Court ordered on 19.01.2009 noting that the learned Assistant Public Prosecutor and the learned counsel for the accused also did not oppose the request for return of the property and the learned Magistrate also perused the copy of the Power of Attorney in favour of Sri Y.N.Kumar Rao, who filed the petition. The learned Magistrate further noted that the investigation record reveals that the goods mentioned belonged to the petitioner himself. Though he was of the opninon that there was no necessity to keep the property in question in the Police Station of L.B.Nagar, still he directed execution of a personal bond for Rs.15,00,000/- with one surety for ensuring the production of the soaps, as and when directed and also further directed the petitioner not to sell or alienate the soaps without the permission of the Court until the disposal of the case. When the petitioner approached the Court of Session in Crl.R.P.No.9 of 2009 against the said order, the learned Sessions Judge ordered on 17.02.2009 that the condition not to alienate the soaps without the permission of the Court until the disposal of the case is in violation of the guidelines of the Apex Court and therefore, he set aside that condition, while retaining the condition for execution of a bond with one surety. The petitioner’s grievance is that for getting custody of the seized goods, he has imposed an onerous condtiion of furnishing a surety for Rs.15,00,000/- which is unnecessary. On the admitted fact that the petitioner is the manufacturer and owner of the soaps and when the State or the accused have no objection for the request of the petitioner for taking return of the soaps, no condition need have been imposed for providing any surety for a significant sum of Rs.15,00,000/-. Such onerous condition is not called for on the facts and circumstances. If only the Court required some assurance for production of either the same quantity of soaps or the value thereof, it could have as well taken an appropriate personal bond from the Power of Attorney Holder of the petitioner. While any contingency of the petitioner having to be ultimately directed at the end of the criminal proceedings to redeposit similar quantity of soaps or their value appears remote, the soaps also cannot be retained without being dealt with, as they perish on expiry of their shelf life of one year. As such, the petitioner should be permitted to take return of soaps on execution of a personal bond. In the result, the orders in Crl.M.P.No.1931 of 2008 in Cr.No.1112 of 2008, dated 19.01.2009 on the file of the II Metropolitan Magistrate, Cyberabad as modified in Crl.R.P.No.9 of 2009 on 17.02.2009 by the orders of the Metropolitan Sessions Judge, Cyberabad, shall stand further modified by confirming the requirement of execution of a personal bond for Rs.15,00,000/- (Rupees fifteen lakhs only) only by the Power of Attorn ey Holder of the petitioner but without the requirement of providing any surety and the Criminal Petition is ordered accordingly. ___________________ G. BHAVANI PRASAD, J 17th August 2009 KH