Back
2020 Supreme(Guj) 963
IN THE HIGH COURT OF GUJARAT AT AHMEDABAD
Ashokkumar C. Joshi, J.
Gurpindarsingh Gurtarsingh Gill – Applicant
Versus
State Of Gujarat – Respondent
R/Special Criminal Application No. 3502 of 2020
Decided On : 17-09-2020
Advocate Appeared:
For the Applicant : Mr Vishvajitsinh D Chauhan, Mr.Kishan Prajapati
For the Respondent: Mr. H.K.Patel, APP
Point of Law: Release of vehicle - 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
Headnote:
Constitution of India,1950 - Articles 226 and 227 - Code of Criminal Procedure,1973 - Section 482 - Gujarat Prohibition Act - Sections 65(E), 81, and 98(2) - Prohibition Act - Section 98(2) - Physical damage - Vehicles are seized by taking appropriate bond and the guarantee for the return - Seeking to invoke extra ordinary jurisdiction to this Court - petitioner is owner of TATA UNITECH TRAILOR four wheeler bearing RTO registration - Case of petitioner that learned Court below has rejected release of muddamal application, only because of restriction under Section 98(2) of Prohibition Act but vehicle lying at the Police Station for more time, otherwise there will be physical damage to it, therefore interference of this Hon’ble Court is required Court may please to allow this application in the interest of justice - Allegations in FIR Police Officers have received secret information regarding prohibition activity and liquor came to be found from vehicle and all the accused person came to be arrested by Police and during raid Investigating Officers have seized one TATA UNITECH TRAILOR four wheeler bearing RTO registration No. MH-43-Y-7975 and accordingly an FIR came to be registered –
Finding of the Court:
State of Gujarat further submitted that at present in Police Station premises, number of vehicles are kept unattended and vehicles become junk day by day. It is his contention that appropriate directions should be given to Magistrates who are dealing with such questions to hand over such vehicles to its owner or to person from whom the said vehicles are seized by taking appropriate bond and guarantee for the return of the said vehicles if required by Court at any point of time - Situation, it is of no use to keep such –seized vehicles at the police stations for a long period - It is for 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 can be done pending hearing of applications for return of such vehicles –
Result: Application allowed
JUDGMENT :
1. The petitioner has filed this application seeking to invoke extra ordinary jurisdiction to this Court under Articles 226 and 227 of the Constitution of India, mainly supervisory jurisdiction so also inherent powers under Section 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure to release the muddamal vehicle – TATA UNITECH TRAILOR four wheeler bearing RTO registration No. MH-43-Y-7975 in connection with the FIR being CR. No. III – 602 of 2019 before the Palsana Police Station, at Surat for the offence punishable under Sections 65(E), 81, and 98(2) of the Gujarat Prohibition Act.
2. Heard learned advocate for the petitioner and learned APP on behalf of the Respondent State of Gujarat through video conference.
Factual Matrix of the case:
3. It is the case of the petitioner is the owner of TATA UNITECH TRAILOR four wheeler bearing RTO registration No. MH-43-Y-7975. It is the case of the petitioner that the learned Court below has rejected release of muddamal application, only because of restriction under Section 98(2) of the Prohibition Act but vehicle lying at the Police Station for more time, otherwise there will be physical damage to it, therefore interference of this Hon’ble Court is required and therefore, this Court may please to allow this application in the interest of justice.
4. It is contended that as per the allegations in the FIR on 16.11.2019, the Police Officers have received secret information regarding prohibition activity and liquor came to be found from the vehicle and all the accused person came to be arrested by Police and during raid the Investigating Officers have seized one TATA UNITECH TRAILOR four wheeler bearing RTO registration No. MH-43-Y-7975 and accordingly an FIR came to be registered.
5. It is also contended that petitioner has purchased TATA UNITECH TRAILOR four wheeler bearing RTO registration No. MH-43-Y-7975, which is the only earning means of the petitioner and present the said vehicle is lying in Police Station in abandon condition. It is also contended that learned 2nd Additional Sessions Judge, Surat has rejected the muddamal application confirming the order of the learned Judicial Magistrate First Class, Palsana dated 26.11.2019, and therefore, the present petition is filed to set aside the order and also prayed for releasing captioned muddamal vehicle.
6. Earlier also this Court has issued Rule on 21.08.2020, returnable on 7.09.2020. Learned advocate for the petitioner time and again vehemently submitted that the co –ordinate Bench passed the order in favour of the petitioner in identical cases. Further learned advocate for the petitioner has placed reliance upon the judgments of co-ordinate Bench (1) in case of Ritesh Bishmber Agrawal vs. State of Gujarat in Special Criminal Application No. 5533 of 2018 order dated 18.01.2019, (2) in case of Ganibhai Yusufbhai Jamroth vs. State of Gujarat in Special Criminal Application No. 2776 of 2020 order dated 07.07.2020, (3) in case of Ranjitbhai Ishvarbhai Chunara (Vaghela) vs. State of Gujarat in Special Criminal Application No. 7631 of 2019 order dated 12.06.2020, (4) in case of Zala Mahendrasinh Kirtisinh vs. State of Gujarat in Special Criminal Application No. 2717 of 2020 order dated 26.06.2020, (5) in case of Prajapati Rajendrakumar Rameshbhai v/s State of Gujarat in Special Criminal Application No. 2692/2020 order dated 14.7.2020, and also placed reliance upon the judgment delivered by the Hon’ble Apex Court in case of Sunderbhai Ambalal Desai Vs. State of Gujarat, AIR 2003 SC 638.
7. Per contra, learned APP for the State has vehemently argued that in the present case earlier there were few offences registered upon the present petitioner and therefore, if the said muddamal vehicle is released, in that case there are all chances of committing the same offence in future under the Prohibition Act. Therefore, learned Trial Court has rightly disallowed the muddamal application. Further, learned APP has also placed reliance upon the judgment passed b
