* 1 * IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY CRIMINAL APPELLATE JURISDICTION CRIMINAL APPLICATION NO. 965 OF 2009 BJ Services Company Middle East Ltd .... Applicants V/s. State of Maharashtra & Anr. ....Respondents ========= Mr.Balasaheb Deshmukh, advocate for applicants. Mrs.P.P.Shinde, APP for respondents/State. CORAM: SMT.R.P.SONDURBALDOTA, J. DATED: 19TH MARCH, 2009. 1. Heard counsel for both sides. 2. By the order dated 13th January, 2009 the learned Judicial Magistrate First Class, 1st Court, Thane allowed application filed by the applicant company for custody of the property seized of the value of Rs.76,93,960/-. The conditions imposed for handing over custody are that the company through its authorised representative Mr.Mohanraj Chettiar should execute an indemnity bond of Rs.80 lakhs before the court and furnish solvent surety of Rs.5 lakhs. The applicant company is also directed not to sell or create any kind of third party rights over the articles seized, without permission of the court. * 2 * 3. The applicant felt that condition no.(2) imposed by the court of furnishing solvent surety of Rs.5 lakhs is too stringent and hence filed an application on 14th January, 2009 before the learned Magistrate for modification of that condition to either deposit the amount of Rs.5 lakhs or to give bank guarantee in the said sum. The learned Metropolitan Magistrate by his order dated 19th January, 2009 rejected the application observing that he does not have powers of review. 4. The applicant then filed Revision Application before the Sessions Court being Revision Application No.11 of 2009. That application was rejected by the learned Sessions Judge by its order dated 4th February, 2009 observing that the order is a discretionary order and discretion is not to be interfered with in revision. Therefore, the applicant has filed the present application for modification of that condition. 5. Mr.Deshmukh, learned counsel for the applicant submits that the procedure for issuance of solvency certificate is a very lengthy procedure, as a consequence, it will take long time to get the solvency certificate. In the mean time, there is a likelihood of the articles seized getting spoiled. The articles were seized in the month of December, 2008. The first application moved for modification of the order granting custody of the articles was 5th January, 2009. Since then till * 3 * date, the applicant has not even filed an application before the Collector for issuance of solvency certificate. Merely because the procedure for obtaining solvency certificate is lengthy, there cannot be by-passing of the condition. It is to be noted that the applicant has exhausted substantial time for applying to the court for modification of the condition and challenging the order further in the higher courts. He could have utilised the same time in making an application before the Collector for issuance of the solvency certificate. 6. It is next argued that most of the managerial staff of the applicant company are foreigners and it will be difficult in getting solvency certificate in their respect. The present application filed is through one, Mohanraj Chettiar, authorised representative of the company who is an Indian. The conditions imposed upon the applicant as regards indemnity bond and solvent surety are to be satisfied through the authorised representative. Therefore the contention as regards the employees of the applicant company being of foreign origin, is without substance. In the circumstances, I am not inclined to interfere with the impugned order. Hence, the Criminal Application is rejected. [SMT.R.P.SONDURBALDOTA, J]