The petitioner herein is aggrieved by some of the conditions imposed by the learned Additional Sessions Judge, (Adhoc-I) Kottayam, for the permission granted to the petitioner herein for sale of a vehicle involved in a crime registered under Sections 114, 454, 395 and 412 of the Indian Penal Code. The vehicle was in fact released to the petitioner under Section 451 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, on certain conditions. The said order was passed by the trial court on the finding that the petitioner herein has right to possess the vehicle. Thereafter the petitioner filed Crl.M.P No.2147/2011 for permission to sell the vehicle because it is a vehicle covered by hypothication agreement, and the petitioner will have to sell the vehicle for realisation of the amount due from the debtor. The learned Additional Sessions Judge allowed the said request on a condition that the petitioner shall furnish bank guarantee for ₹6,00,000/-. Yet another condition imposed by the trial court is that the petitioner will have to produce the vehicle as and when Crl.M.C No.5306 of 2013 2 required, for the purpose of identification. The petitioner is aggrieved by these two conditions, and so the petitioner seeks orders under Section 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure quashing the conditions.
2. As required by the Court during this proceeding, the learned Additional Sessions Judge submitted a report that the possibility of orders confiscating the said vehicle is in fact very remote. It is reported by the learned Judge that the prosecution has no allegation that the vehicle was used by the 7th accused for commission of any offence with the knowledge or connivance of witness No.12 cited by the prosecution. It is quite clear that possibility of the vehicle being confiscated is in fact very remote as reported by the learned Sessions Judge. Having permitted the petitioner to sell the vehicle for realisation of the loan amount, the trial judge should not have made a further direction to produce the vehicle as and when required. The said condition, no doubt, is liable to be set aside.
3. In the present circumstances, as reported by trial court, it would be inappropriate and unjust to direct the petitioner to furnish bank guarantee for ₹6,00,000/-. If the petitioner has already executed bond as ordered earlier, it will Crl.M.C No.5306 of 2013 3 be sufficient to enforce the liabilities, if any, of the petitioner.
In the result, this Criminal Miscellaneous Case is allowed. The condition Nos.1 and 3 imposed by the court below as per order dated 17.2.2012 in Crl.M.P No.2147/2011 will stand set aside under Section 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure.
P.UBAID JUDGE ab