Partly allowed

Iswari Prasad v. State of Rajasthan through Pp

Rajasthan HC19 Jul 2016CRLMP/3006/2016

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

Disposal of a Criminal Miscellaneous Petition seeking release of seized bidi goods. The High Court directed that the packaging be retained while the bidis be released against bonds to repackage and sell them in conformity with amended COTPA Rules.

What did the court decide?

Order dismissing the release application set aside. Bidis to be released; packaging retained by trial court. Bonds required for repackaging per COTPA Rules.

Iswari Prasad Vs State of Rajasthan through Pp — Rajasthan HC (2016) — LawSathi Research

¶1

¶2

In the High Court of Judicature for Rajasthan at Jaipur Bench Jaipur O R D E R

¶3

S.B. Criminal Miscellaneous Petition No.3006 of 2016 Iswari Prasad and Brothers Vs. State of Rajasthan

¶4

Date of Order ::: 19.07.2016

¶5

Hon'ble Mr. Justice Kanwaljit Singh Ahluwalia

¶6

Mr. Rajeev Kr. Jain,

¶7

Mr. H.K. Sharma & Mr. Piyush Kr. Ray, Counsel for the petitioner Mr. Aladeen Khan, Public Prosecutor for the State

¶8

¶9

Instant petition has been preferred under Section 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 for setting aside

¶10

the order dated 17.06.2016 passed by the District & Sessions Judge, Alwar, whereby the application for release of the seized goods has been dismissed.

¶11

The learned counsel appearing for the petitioner has submitted that the petitioner is a registered partnership firm and is engaged in trading of 'Tobacco' products. Counsel has further submitted that on 21.04.2016 Chief Medical Officer, Alwar came to the premises of the petitioner and seized 113280 bundles of bidi having brand '502 Pataka'.

¶12

Counsel appearing for the petitioner has contended that approximate value of bidi seized is Rs.14,72,640/-. Counsel has further contended that the goods have been seized on the ground that packaging is not commensurated with the statutory required law under COTPA Rules (hereinafter called 'Rules').

¶13

¶14

Counsel appearing for the petitioner has pleaded that

¶15

the above Rules were recently amended and as per 'Rules', 85%

¶16

of the principal display area of the package must contain a statutory warning that 'smoking of the bidi is injurious to health'. Counsel has further pleaded that the bidis in the custody of the Court will perish and irreparable loss will be caused to the petitioner/firm.

¶17

After hearing the learned counsel appearing for the parties, the present petition is, hereby, disposed of by issuing following directions :-

¶18

(a) That the packaging of the bidis (packets) shall be retained by the Court below, subject to undertaking furnished by the petitioner/firm that they shall not question the packets/packaging so far their printing and identity is concerned.

¶19

(b) That the Court below after retaining packets/ packaging shall return the bidis to the petitioner/firm, subject to their filing requisite personal bonds by the petitioner/ firm and bonds by two solvent sureties. Personal bond and bonds to be furnished by the sureties shall be to the extent of value of the bidis to be returned, without the packets/packaging.

¶20

(c) That in the bonds to be executed by the petitioner/ firm and the surety, it shall be specifically stated that the bidi will be repackageed and sold in new packets in conformity with the amended Rules.

¶21

¶22

(d) That the trial Court to ensure that the proceedings are not hampered may incorporate any other condition, which it may deem fit in the bonds to be executed by the petitioner/firm and the sureties.

¶23

Upon disposal of the main petition, stay application,

¶24

filed therewith does not survives and the same is also disposed

¶25

of.

¶26

[ Kanwaljit Singh Ahluwalia ] J.

¶27

ashok/

¶28

Certificate - All corrections have been incorporated in the judgment/order being emailed. Ashok Kumar Songara/P.S..cum J.W.

Iswari Prasad v. State of Rajasthan through Pp

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Iswari Prasad v. State of Rajasthan through Pp

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

What the court decided

A compact analysis

Issues for consideration

Statutes considered

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Mahendra Singh Vs State of Rajasthan through Pp

Sohan Singh and Ors. Vs Omveer Singh and Ors.

Virandavan Vs Amar Chand and Ors.

Kamal Kumar Rathore Vs State of Rajasthan through Pp

Smt Lali Devi and Others Vs Raju Lal Panchal and Others

Abdul Khalik Vs State of Rajasthan and Anr.