Point of Law: whatever be the situation, it is of no use to keep such seized vehicles at the police stations for a long period. It is for the Magistrate to pass appropriate orders immediately by taking appropriate bond and guarantee as well as security for return of the said vehicles, if required at any point of time. This can be done pending hearing of applications for return of such vehicles

ORDER :

1. With the consent of learned advocates for the respective parties, present petition is taken up final hearing for today, through videoconference.

2. By way of present petition, under Articles 226 and 227 of the Constitution of India, the petitioner, who has purchased the vehicle from the registered owner -Suresh Tribhovan Parmar, by way of an agreement dated 02.05.2019, has prayed for release of the muddamal vehicle – Toyota Etios Liva Car bearing Registration No.GJ-10-AP-6724.

3. Having heard submissions made at bar, it appears that the Courts below refused to return Muddamal vehicle in view of provisions of section 98(2) of Gujarat Prohibition Act and Rule 9 framed under the said Act, inasmuch as, the interim custody of the vehicle carrying more than 10 liters liquor cannot be released.

4. The case of the present petitioner is that the petitioner that he has purchased the aforesaid vehicle from the resisted owner by way of an agreement. The said vehicle is alleged to have been used for commission of the offence and therefore the muddamal vehicle is in possession of the police in connection with the offence, being Prohibition C.R.No.III-611 of 2019 registered with Navsari Rural Police Station, Navsari for the offences punishable under Sections 65(A), 65(E), 81, 116(B) and 98(2) of the Prohibition Act. Therefore, the petitioner preferred an application before the learned Judicial Magistrate, First Class, Navsari, for release of the vehicle. However, the same came to be rejected by the learned Magistrate vide order dated 26.02.2020. The petitioner therefore, preferred Criminal Revision Application No.27 of 2020 before learned Sessions Court under Section 397 of the Cr.P.C., which also came to be rejected vide order dated 21.07.2020. As a result of this, since the vehicle in question has remained in custody and several orders have been passed by the coordinate Benches of this Court about release of vehicles, the petitioner has invoked the extraordinary jurisdiction of this Court under Articles 226 and 227 of the Constitution of India.

5. Learned advocate for the petitioner has submitted that in view of the embargo contained in section 98(2) of the Gujarat Prohibition Act, the Trial Court is precluded from releasing the custody of muddamal vehicle under section 451 of the Code of Criminal Procedure to the owner of the vehicle. The original owner has filed affidavit dated 29.09.2020 stating that he has no objection if the vehicle is handed-over to the petitioner being subsequent purchaser and he shall not claim the vehicle in future.

6. Learned advocate for the petitioner has further submitted that the orders passed by Courts below may be quashed and set aside and by exercising the extraordinary jurisdiction, and this Honourable Court may kindly pass order for release of the vehicle in question. It has further been submitted that if the vehicle in question is not released, not only the same would remain in unused position in the police station but the same would be deteriorated to such an extent that after the trial is over, the vehicle will not be in workable position at all. This issue has been dealt with in several orders by the coordinate Benches. Hence, a request is made to release the vehicle in question.

7. To the aforesaid submissions, learned APP has submitted that by virtue of the statutory provisions, the detention of the vehicle is thoroughly justified and non-release of the same by the Courts below is also in accordance with law. Hence, no order be passed in favour of the petitioner. It has been submitted that by virtue of Section 92(2) of the Gujarat Prohibition Act, whenever such kind of vehicles are detained as muddamal in connection with the offences and quantity of liquor is found to be 10 Ltrs. and more, the vehicles are not to be released and that the order which has been passed by learned Magistrate is justified. However, on the issue of about exercise of extraordinary jurisdiction and several decisions whi