Back
2021 Supreme(Guj) 669
IN THE HIGH COURT OF GUJARAT AT AHMEDABAD
ASHOKKUMAR C. JOSHI, J.
LINEN RUGS THRO JASWANT LAHNA SINGH - Appellant
Versus
STATE OF GUJARAT - Respondent
SPECIAL CRIMINAL APPLICATION NO. 2562 of 2021
Decided On : 02-09-2021
For The Appellant : CHINTAN U PATEL
For The Respondent: MS CM SHAH, APP.
Point of Law : 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.
Headnote:
Indian Penal Code,1860 - Section 379 - Criminal Procedure Code, 1973 - Section 482 and 451 - Constitution of India, 1950 - Articles 226 and 227 - Prohibition Act - Sections 65(A)(E), 66(2), 81, 82,99 and 98(2) - Theft - Release of vehicle - Order for custody and disposal of property pending trial in certain cases - Petitioner is owner of vehicle and in fact said vehicle was stolen on for which an FIR was also lodged before PS Dist for offence punishable under section 379 of IPC It is submitted that said stolen vehicle belonging to petitioner was used in crime in question and eventually same came to be seized by police - It is further submitted that vehicle in question is duly registered with transport department of government and petitioner is only claimant seeking custody of said vehicle.
Finding of the Court:
Court can very much entertain such petition In support of such submission he has relied upon orders of Coordinate Benches passed in Special Criminal Application - Court for release of muddamal without prior approaching to learned concerned Court below - It is also submitted that by virtue of provisions of section 98 of Act there is clear embargo for handing over custody of vehicle used in offence pending trial Court and if vehicle would lie at p s for more time there will be physical damage to it and interference of Court is required in interest of justice.
Result: Petition Allowed
JUDGMENT :
1. The petitioner has filed this petition seeking to invoke extra ordinary jurisdiction of this Court under Articles 226 and 227 of the Constitution of India r/w. section 482 of the Criminal Procedure Code, 1973 (“the Code” for short) to release the muddamal vehicle being Toyota Innova Car, bearing RTO registration No. HR-06-AE-2606, in connection with the FIR being III-C.R. No. 192 of 2019, registered before the Damavav Police Station, Dist.: Panchmahals for the offence punishable under Sections 65(A)(E), 66(2), 81, 82 and 98(2) of the Prohibition Act.
2. Heard learned advocate Mr. Chintan Patel for the petitioner and learned APP Ms. C. M. Shah on behalf of the respondent - State.
Factual Matrix of the case:
3. The learned advocate for the petitioner submitted that as per the allegations made in the FIR, there was liquor worth Rs.6,03,620/- found in the muddamal vehicle. It is the case of the petitioner that the petitioner is the owner of the muddamal vehicle, and in fact, the said vehicle was stolen on 11.10.2019 for which, an FIR was also lodged before the Chandnibagh Police Station, Dist.: Panipat for the offence punishable under section 379 of the IPC. It is submitted that the said stolen vehicle belonging to the petitioner was used in the crime in question and eventually, the same came to be seized by the police. It is further submitted that the muddamal vehicle in question is duly registered with the transport department of the government and the petitioner is the only claimant seeking the custody of the said muddamal vehicle.
3.1 It is submitted by the learned advocate for the petitioner that the petitioner has directly approached this Court for release of muddamal i.e. without prior approaching to the learned concerned Court below. It is also submitted that by virtue of provisions of section 98 of the Act, there is clear embargo for handing over the custody of the vehicle used in the offence pending the trial Court, and if the vehicle would lie at the police station for more time, there will be physical damage to it and therefore, interference of this Court is required in the interest of justice.
3.2 It is submitted that under the extra ordinary jurisdiction, this Court can very much entertain such petition. In support of such submission, he has relied upon the orders of the Coordinate Benches passed in Special Criminal Application Nos. 3747 of 2020 dated 27.08.2020 and 4204 of 2020 dated 08.09.2020.
3.3 In support of his submissions, the learned advocate for the petitioner has placed reliance upon the judgments of Coordinate 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 Vs. State of Gujarat in Special Criminal Application No. 2692 of 2020 order dated 14.07.2020 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.
3.4 Accordingly, it is urged that present petition may be allowed and the muddamal vehicle may be released on any suitable conditions.
4. Per contra, learned APP for the respondent - State has vehemently argued that the quantity of liquor is huge 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. Further, learned APP has also placed reliance upon the judgment passed by this Court in case of Anilkumar Ramlal @ Ramanlaji Mehta Vs. State of Gujarat
