GLEXO INDIA LTD Vs. STATE OF U P

JUDGEMENT

(1.) NASEEMUDDIN, J. This petition can be disposed of finally as the parties agree.

(2.) IT appears that an FIR was lodged on behalf of the present petitioner regarding theft of medicines from the godown of the petitioner. After some days recovery is alleged to have been made of those medicines. The petitioner claimed the custody of the recovered articles and the Court agreed to give the custody but on the condition that the petitioner would furnish two sureties and one personal bond of Rupee Five Lakh each. During the proceeding it was found that the police had reported that the cost of medicine was Rupee Four Lakh. This means that in the case of property of Rupee Four Lakh security of Rupee Fifteen Lakh was ordered to be given while giving custody to the real owner of the stolen articles. Petitioner failed every where and applications after applications were rejected. Needless to say that the medicines are perishable items and cannot be used after the expiry period within which the medicines ought to have been used. Counsel for the petitioner is willing to furnish personal bond of the amount equivalent of the value of the medicines. The medicines were stolen in the year 2000. In my opinion the Courts below should have accepted the prayer of the petitioner for giving personal bond of Rupee three lakh as prayed by them in their application. The orders of the Courts below, therefore, stand modified to the extent that the recovered property of this case crime No. 544 of 2000 P. S. Gangaghat district Unnao under Sections 457, 380 and 411 IPC shall be given in the custody of the petitioner on furnishing a personal bond of Rupee Three Lakh of the person authorised by the petitioner Glaxo India Limited.