Bombay High Court Directed Release Of Seized Gutka And Pan-Masala On Furnishing The Bank Guarantee For Amount Of Rs. 27.84 Lakhs

The Bombay High Court in the case State of Maharashtra Versus Mahabal Enterprises observed and has directed to release the Gutka and Pan-Masala, which were being banned in the state of Maharashtra, after furnishing of the bank guarantee of an amount of Rs. 27,84,000.
The Single bench headed by Justice Kishore C. Sant in the case observed and has modified an order passed by the Revisional Court wherein the court added that an additional condition that the respondent shall furnish the bank guarantee in the sum of Rs. 27,84,000 instead of furnishing an indemnity bond of an amount of Rs. 61,44,000
In the present case, the respondent was being found transporting gutka (or pan masala), which is being banned in the state of Maharashtra. On April 1, 2012, the goods were seized in Dhule. In December 2021, the goods were also being manufactured and the best-before date is six months which being from the date of manufacture. The court observed that in December 2022, the said goods were being
manufactured.
It has been contended by the respondent that the goods in fact have not been expired; it is only their “best before date, before which the goods are to be consumed, so if in any case the goods are being released. The court also observed that there being no such specific evidence of prosecution that the goods were to be sold in the state
of Maharashtra.
It has been submitted by the respondent appearing before the court that a “Tax Invoice’ wherein it is showing that the goods were to be transported from Faridabad in the State of Haryana to Bangalore in the State of Karnataka. The GST has even been paid by him. Thus, there being no such way to go to Bangalore (Karnataka) from Faridabad (Haryana) except by the way which being the state of Maharashtra. In such cases where he being the owner of the goods and he cannot be deprived of them merely because the prosecution is pending and prays for the rejection of the petition.
The plea was partly allowed by the court and has modified the condition imposed by the
Sessions Court.