1 IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY NAGPUR BENCH AT NAGPUR CRIMINAL APPLICATION NO. 327/2008 M/s. Drug Center ..vs.. State of Maharashtra -------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- Office Notes, Office Memoranda of Coram, appearances, Court's Orders or Court's or Judge's Orders directions and Registrar's orders. -------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- CORAM: R. V. MORE, J. DATED : 17 th June, 2008 1. Heard Mr. Shyam Dewani, learned counsel for the applicant and Mr. Adgokar, A.P.P. for the non applicant. 2. By this revision application, the applicant challenges orders dated 17.10.2007 and 15.11.2007 passed in Misc. Criminal Application Nos. 1472/2007 and 1694/2007 by the learned Additional Chief Judicial Magistrate, Nagpur. The applicant also claims release of property at Sr. Nos. 1 and 19 mentioned in para No. 2 of the application No. 1472/2007. 3. The applicant is a partnership firm engaged in the business of drugs and medicines. On 23.08.2007, the non applicant raided the premises of the applicant as well as residence premises of the partner of the applicant on the 2 information that the residential premises is being used by the applicant for the purpose of stocking the medicines without any license. The non applicant seized medicines at Sr. Nos. 1 to 20 and 41 in the list given in para No. 2 of the above application and an offence under Section 22 (1) (c) & (cc) of the Drugs and Cosmetics Act, 1940 was registered. The applicant filed Misc. Criminal Application No. 1472/2007 before the learned Additional Chief Judicial Magistrate, Nagpur for release of the property on Supurtnama. The list of medicines which came to be seized by non applicant is given in para No. 2 at Sr. Nos. 1 to 20 and 41. The learned Magistrate disposed of this application by passing order on 17.10.2007 whereby he released the seized articles item Nos.1, 3 to 20 and 41 on execution of Supurtnama Bond of Rs. 1,50,000/- with condition that the applicant shall not dispose of the articles. The applicant was also directed to deposit an amount of Rs.1,50,000/- as and when required in the Court. 3 4. The applicant filed another Misc. Criminal Application No. 1694/2007 for modification of the earlier order. By this application the applicant prayed for permission to sell medicine which is released under the earlier order. The applicant also prayed for waiving the condition of deposit of Rs. 1,50,000/-. This application was disposed of by the learned Additional Chief Judicial Magistrate, Nagpur on 15.11.2007. The learned Magistrate granted permission to the applicant to sell items at Sr. Nos. 2 to 18, 20 and 41, however, the permission in respect of medicines and drugs at Sr. Nos. 1 and 19 was refused. The applicant was also directed to deposit an amount of Rs. 1,50,000/- which is the amount of Supurtnama bond. 5. Having heard learned counsel for the respective parties, I find that the learned Magistrate did not grant permission to sell the drugs at Sr. Nos. 1 and 19 on the ground that the report regarding quality of these medicines is awaited. So far as the drugs at Sr. Nos. 2 to 18, 20 and 41 4 are concerned, the report about the quality is already received and, therefore, the applicant was permitted to sell the drugs. In my view the permission to the applicant to sell the drugs at Sr. Nos. 1 and 19 is not granted rightly as the report regarding quality of the same is awaited. The applicant, therefore, can be given liberty to apply afresh for permission to sell the drugs at Sr. Nos. 1 and 19 after receipt of the report regarding its quality. 6. So far as the directions contained in the impugned order about deposit of Rs. 1,50,000/- is concerned, I find merit in the contention of the applicant. The learned counsel for the applicant submits that the applicant has already executed Supurtnama Bond of Rs. 1,50,000/-. There is no dispute about the ownership of the drugs which are seized from the premises allegedly used by the partners of the applicant for residence. The quality of the drugs is also not disputed. Taking into consideration the nature of the alleged offence coupled with the fact that there is no dispute about 5 the ownership and quality of the drugs, the condition to deposit an amount of Rs. 1,50,000/- is unjust and not reasonable. 7. In these circumstances, the impugned order passed on 15.11.2007 in Misc. Criminal Application No. 1694/2007 is modified as follows:- (i) The applicant is permitted to dispose of the drugs at Sr. Nos. 2 to 18, 20 and 41 of the list given in para No. 2 of the application namely Misc. Cr. A. No. 1472/2007 on execution of Supurtnama Bond of Rs. 1,50,000/-. (ii) So far as drugs at Sr. Nos. 1 and 19 in the list in para No. 2 of the application No. 1472/2008 is concerned, the applicant is at liberty to apply the learned Magistrate afresh after receipt of the report about quality of the drugs from the Chemical Analyser. (iii) The application stands disposed of accordingly. JUDGE kahale