1wp-3629-10 IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY CRIMINAL APPELLATE JURISDICTION Criminal Writ Petition No. 3629 of 2010 Mr Mayur Pravinkumar Mehta .. Petitioner. V/s State of Maharashtra and Ors. .. Respondents. Shri Khan Abdul wahab, Advocate for the Petitioner. Shri Sachin B. Shetye with Ms Seema Rawade Advocate for B.M.C. Mr P.A.Pol , Public Prosecutor for the State. CORAM : A.M. KHANWILKAR & A.R. JOSHI, JJ. DATED : 10TH JANUARY,2011. P.C.:- 1. Counsel for the petitioner relies on order passed in Criminal Writ Petition No. 11 of 2011 and invites this Court to pass similar order, even in the present matter. There is no dispute that similar orders have been passed in a large number of cases by this Court, in the presence 2wp-3629-10 of the Advocate on record for the Respondent- Corporation (Ms Seema Rawade, Advocate). Today, the Respondent- Corporation is represented by Counsel, who submits that, the Court may take a different view of the matter. According to him, the goods in question have been imported for and on behalf of four different parties and if the goods are released on payment of deficit octroi duty alone, it may be difficult for the Corporation to pursue the remedy of confiscation of the goods in question. The argument clearly over looks the legal principle stated in the decision of this Court in the case of Sushmita Sen Vs. Municipal Corporation and Anr reported in 2008 (2) Mh.LJ Page-42. 2. The fact that the goods in question pertain to four different parties is of no consequence. Insofar as the Respondent-Corporation is concerned, its remedy is only in respect of recovery of octroi duty. Insofar as deposit of octroi duty is concerned, the petitioner undertakes that he is willing to pay the octroi amount forthwith. Besides, the petitioner undertakes that as and when penalty amount is imposed on the petitioner for the import of the said goods within the limits of Mumbai Municipal Corporation, he would make good even that amount. The petitioner is also willing to comply all other 3wp-3629-10 formalities before release of the goods in question. 3. In view of the assurance given by the petitioner, we fail to understand as to how the Corporation can be permitted to take a different stand than one taken in all other cases similarly placed. The Corporation would be entitled to receive penalty only if it were to institute prosecution against the petitioner for the import of the goods in question. It is only if the prosecution ends in conviction of the petitioner, the Corporation would become entitled for penalty / fine amount from the petitioner. 4. To get over this position, Counsel for the Corporation submits that the Corporation is more than willing to lodge prosecution against the petitioner in connection with the import of the goods as well as the vehicle in question and the release of goods and vehicle be made subject to the outcome of the said prosecution. We can understand that the Corporation before releasing the goods and vehicle in question, institutes such prosecution against the petitioner and approaches the concerned Court for grant of appropriate order of seizure or attachment of the said goods and vehicle which is subject matter of the proceeding. If the said Court were to grant such relief, needless to observe that the goods and vehicle will have 4wp-3629-10 to be made subject to such orders. As of now, no prosecution has been launched. The Corporation cannot postpone the release of the goods and vehicle in question to the petitioner indefinitely. The Corporation will have to act against the petitioner in relation to the vehicle and goods in question expeditiously with utmost dispatch and in any case within a reasonable time. 5. We accordingly, dispose of this petition on the same terms as other cases subject to the direction to the Corporation to take decision on the request for release of the goods and vehicle not later than four weeks from today. Subject to the petitioner s complying with all the requisite formalities, besides paying the deficit octroi amount, the goods and vehicle in question be released. That however will be without prejudice to the option available to the Corporation to prosecute the petitioner and further demand towards penalty/fine amount from the petitioner in the event the petitioner was to be convicted in connection with the said prosecution. 4. The petition is disposed of on the above basis. Statement made by the petitioner through Counsel is accepted. 5. We make it clear that we are not expressing opinion 5wp-3629-10 one way or the other with regard to the issue of seizure or attachment of the goods and vehicle in question. If the proposed criminal action is to be instituted by the Corporation, the same will have to be decided on its own merits in accordance with law. (A.R. JOSHI, J) ( A.M. KHANWILKAR,J)