IN THE HIGH COURT OF GUJARAT AT AHMEDABAD
B.N. KARIA, J.
Ess Kay Fincorp Limited Through Bhalabhai Ajubhai Makwana – Appellant
Versus
State Of Gujarat – Respondent
R/Special Criminal Application No.681 of 2021
Decided on : 09-04-2021
Gujarat Prohibition Act, 1949 – Constitution of India, 1950 - Article 226 - Seizure/detention - Release of vehicle – Seeking direction to respondent No.2 to release/handover the custody of seized muddamal “Maruti Suzuki Eco car” on appropriate terms and conditions - Dispute with regard to ownership of the vehicle in question. It also does not appear that the vehicle concerned had been seized/detained in connection with any offence including any offence under Prohibition Act prior to present seizure/detention.
Finding of the court: Court would pass such order within a period of six months from date of production of said vehicle before the Court. It also directed that before handing over possession of such vehicles, appropriate photographs of the said vehicle should be taken and a detailed panchnama should also be prepared. The Apex Court also held and specifically directed hat concerned Magistrate would take immediate action for seeing that powers under Section 451 of Code are properly and promptly exercised and articles are not kept for a long time at police station, in any case, for not more than fifteen days to one month. It, therefore, directed that this object can also be achieved if there is proper supervision by Registry of concerned High Court in seeing that rules framed by the High Court with regard to such articles are implemented properly - Concerned Police Station shall handover possession of vehicle to applicant at earliest.
Result: Application is allowed
ORDER :
1. As per endorsement made in the cause-list, the respondent No.3 is duly served with the notice. But, no body was remained present to contest this petition, when the matter is called out.
2. Report dated Deesa South Police Station is submitted by the learned APP, which is taken on record.
3. By way of this application, the applicant has prayed to issue a writ, order or direction, directing the respondent No.2 to release/handover the custody of seized muddamal “Maruti Suzuki Eeco car”, bearing registration No. GJ-02-BP-7651 which came to be seized by the Investigating Officer in connection with FIR, being CR No. III-308 of 2018 registered with Deesa South Police Station, Banaskantha to the applicant, on appropriate conditions, as deemed fit by this Hon'ble High Court, in the interest of justice and also to allow the sale of muddamal “Maruti Suzuki Eeco car”, bearing registration No. GJ-02-BP-7651 which came to be seized by the Investigating Officer in connection with FIR, being CR No. III-308 of 2018 registered with Deesa South Police Station, Banaskantha on appropriate terms and conditions, as may be deemed fit by this Hon'ble Court in the interest of justice.
4. Heard learned advocate for the applicant and learned APP Mr. Manan Mehta for the respondent-State.
5. In support of his arguments, learned advocate for the applicant has relied upon orders passed by this Court in Special Criminal Application Nos. 2538 of 2014; 2283 of 2016 and 2300 of 2016.
6. This Court had passed the following order in Special Criminal Application No. 2538 of 2014, which read as under :-
“14. In our considered opinion, the aforesaid information is required to be utilised and followed scrupulously and has to be given positively as and when asked for by the Insurer. We also feel, it is necessary that in addition to the directions issued by this Court in Sunderbhai Ambalal Desai (Supra) considering the mandate of Section 451 read with Section 457 of the Code, the following further directions with regard to seized vehicles are required to be given with Section 457 of the Code, the following further directions with regard to seized vehicles are required to be given.
“(A) Insurer may be permitted to move a separate application for release of the recovered vehicle as soon as it is informed of such recovery before the Jurisdictional Court. Ordinarily, release shall be made within a period of 30 days from the date of the application. The necessary photographs may be taken duly authenticated and certified, and a detailed panchamama may be prepared before such release.
(B) The photographs so taken may be used as secondary evidence during trial. Hence, physical production of the vehicle may be dispensed with.
(C) Insurer would submit an undertaking/ guarantee to remit the proceeds from the sale/auction of the vehicle conducted by the Insurance Company in the event that the Magistrate finally adjudicates that the rightful ownership of the vehicle, pursuant to the application for release of the recovered vehicle. Insistence on personal bonds may be dispensed with looking to the corporate structure of the insurer.”
15. It is a matter of common knowledge that as and when vehicles are seized and kept in various police stations, not only they occupy substantial space of the police stations but upon being kept in open, are also prone to fast natural decay on account of weather conditions. Even a good maintained vehicle loses its road worthiness if it is kept stationary in the police station for more t
Login now and unlock free premium legal research
Login to SupremeToday AI and access free legal analysis, AI highlights, and smart tools.
Login
now!
India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!
Copyright © 2023 Vikas Info Solution Pvt Ltd. All Rights Reserved.