IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE R.BASANT TUESDAY, THE 20TH JANUARY 2009 / 30TH POUSHA 1930 Crl.MC.No. 199 of 2009() ------------------------ CMP.4330/2008 of ADDL.CHIEF JUDICIAL MAGISTRATE, ERNAKULAM CRIME NO.1380/08 OF HILL PALACE POLICE STATION, THRIPPUNITHURA .................... PETITIONER : PETITIONER ------------------------- SANDHYA ANTONY,D/O C.P.GEORGE, 11/51,PUTHEN VEETTIL HOUSE,KUMBALAM.P.O, PANANGAD. BY ADV. SRI.S.SANTHOSH KUMAR RESPONDENT(S): RESPONDENT ------------------------- THE SUB INSPECTOR OF POLICE,HILL PALACE STATION,THRIPPUNITHURA,ERNAKULAM,REP; BY THE P.PROSECUTOR,HIGH COURT OF KERALA, ERNAKULAM. BY PUBLIC PROSECUTOR SRI.P.A.SALIM THIS CRIMINAL MISC. CASE HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 20/01/2009, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY PASSED THE FOLLOWING: R.BASANT, J ------------------------------------ Crl.M.C. No.199 of 2009 ------------------------------------- Dated this the 20th day of January, 2009 ORDER A tanker lorry belonging to the petitioner has been seized and a crime has been registered alleging commission of offences punishable under the Essential Commodities Act r/w the Kerala Motor Spirit and High Speed Diesel Oil (Maintenance and Regulation on Supplies) Order 1979. 9,350 litres of oil (described as `kari oil') were allegedly being transported in the tanker lorry belonging to the petitioner. 8,000 litres were loaded in the vehicle; whereas the balance were available in barrels in the property of the accused. The petitioner has not been arrayed as an accused. According to the petitioner, the oil that is being carried does not at all attract the provisions of the 1979 order. The seizure is unnecessary. The petitioner's vehicle does not deserve to be intercepted, seized and detained, it is submitted. 2. The petitioner applied for release of the vehicle. The request was primarily allowed by the learned Magistrate. But the petitioner is aggrieved by a condition imposed that a deposit Crl.M.C. No.199 of 2009 2 of Rs.2 lakhs must be made in addition to the obligation to execute the bonds for Rs.5 lakhs with two solvent sureties each for the like sum. The petitioner is willing to execute the bond. But the condition of deposit of Rs.2 lakhs in cash is not justified. Such imposition of a condition is undeserved inasmuch as the investigators even now are not sure whether the offence alleged would be attracted at all considering the nature of the oil that was seized. 3. Notice was given to the learned Public Prosecutor. The learned Public Prosecutor opposes the application. The learned Public Prosecutor submits that the oil in question has to be got examined by the expert. Necessary steps are being taken. At this juncture the condition may not be deleted or modified. 4. I have considered all the relevant circumstances. It is evident that no one can say with authenticity that offence has been committed by the alleged transportation of oil. The report of the expert is awaited. I am satisfied, in these circumstances, that such an onerous condition need not be imposed and insisted. It is not necessary to insist that a cash deposit of Rs.2 lakhs must be made. The condition that a bond for Rs.5 lakhs must be executed with two solvent sureties each for the like sum, Crl.M.C. No.199 of 2009 3 I am satisfied, shall serve the ends of justice eminently. The learned Magistrate, needless to say, must ensure that the sureties offered are sufficient and solvent. There shall be a further direction that in the bond to be executed by the petitioner, the petitioner must undertake that the vehicle shall not be alienated or possession transferred by him without specific orders of the court. He shall further undertake in the bond that the vehicle, while in his possession, shall not be used for commission of any offence punishable under the Essential Commodities Act. 5. This Crl.M.C is allowed to the above extent. (R.BASANT, JUDGE) rtr/-