Chambers of Ishaan Garg
Ch. No. 217, Western Wing, District & Sessions Court, Tis Hazari, New Delhi, Delhi 110054
+91 8851742417, +91 8800386163
Keeping in mind the aforesaid legal provisions, more particularly if the Condition No.6 imposed by the learned Sessions Judge, is read over, the same is completely beyond jurisdiction of the learned Sessions Court while exercising powers under Section 439 of the Cr.P.C. I say so because the same is amounting to usurping powers envisaged under Section 10(6) of the Act of 2003, that too without following any procedure as prescribed. Thus, the impugned condition imposed by the Sessions Court while exercising powers under Section 439 of the Cr.P.C., in my considered opinion, is beyond its competence and is also contrary to the provision of the Act of 2003. The Sessions Court while exercising discretionary powers under Section 439 of Cr.P.C. and while imposing condition, could not have overlooked the provision of the Act of 2003 and could not have passed an order imposing condition akin to provision of Section 10(6) of the Act of 2003. Thus, the bank guarantee which is furnished by the petitioner cannot be in such a way appropriated and/or forfeited in favour of complainant State, without following due procedure of law prescribed under the Act of 2003. {Para 13}
14. In view of the aforesaid discussion, in my considered opinion, Condition No.6 imposed by the learned Principal District and Sessions Judge (Designated Court), Rajkot while exercising its power under Section 439 of the Cr.P.C., is beyond its competence and thus, the said condition deserves to be deleted.
IN THE HIGH COURT OF GUJARAT AT AHMEDABAD
R/SPECIAL CRIMINAL APPLICATION NO. 4953 of 2022
KIRANKUMAR VANMALIDAS PANCHASARA Vs STATE OF GUJARAT
CORAM: MR. JUSTICE NIRAL R. MEHTA
Date : 20/06/2022
