TARSEM CHAND Vs. STATE OF PUNJAB

JUDGEMENT

(1.) Prayer in this petition is, for setting aside the order dated 17/9/2004, passed by the Additional Sessions Judge, Mansa. Counsel for the petitioner, confines prayer in the present petition, to the legality of the terms and conditions imposed by the Additional Sessions Judge, while directing release of the seized goods, to the petitioner.

(2.) Counsel for the petitioner contends that the goods were seized on 26.7.2003 and ordered to be released on 17.9.2004. As the goods were perishable, the learned Court below should have assessed the depreciated value of the goods and only thereafter, proceeded to impose terms and conditions, for their release. The learned Court below, however, imposed terms and conditions, on the basis of the invoice value of the goods. It is further argued that a bank guarantee would impose unnecessary financial burden upon the petitioner and would in essence, deny benefit of the impugned order, to the petitioner.

(3.) Counsel for the respondent on the other hand states that the impugned order does not suffer from any illegality or infirmity. The conditions for release have been rightly imposed. I have heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the impugned order dated 17/9/2004.