Back
2020 Supreme(Guj) 995
IN THE HIGH COURT OF GUJARAT AT AHMEDABAD
ASHOKKUMAR C. JOSHI, J.
Vinod Chandubhai Bhaliya – Appellant
Versus
State Of Gujarat – Respondent
R/Special Criminal Application No. 3445 of 2020
Decided on : 16-09-2020
Advocate Appeared:
For the Appellant : JUCKY LUCKY CHAN
For the Respondent: Mr. H. K. PATEL, Adv
The central legal point established in the judgment is the court's exercise of powers under Articles 226 and 227 of the Constitution to allow the release of a muddamal vehicle under the Gujarat Prohibition Act, despite the restrictions under Section 98(2), based on previous judgments and the interpretation of the law.
Headnote:
muddamal - Release of Vehicle - Gujarat Prohibition Act - Sections 65(E), 98(2) - The court discussed the provisions of Sections 65(E) and 98(2) of the Gujarat Prohibition Act and the exercise of powers under Articles 226 and 227 of the Constitution of India. The court referred to previous judgments and the interpretation of the law in releasing muddamal vehicles involved in offenses under the Prohibition Act. The court allowed the application, directing the release of the vehicle with specific terms and conditions.
Fact of the Case:
The petitioner sought the release of a muddamal vehicle, Pulsar 200 DTS, which was seized in connection with an offense under the Gujarat Prohibition Act. The lower court had rejected the release application citing restrictions under Section 98(2) of the Prohibition Act. The petitioner argued that the vehicle was at risk of physical damage if left at the police station and sought the court's intervention.
Finding of the Court:
The court, after considering the arguments and previous judgments, exercised its powers under Articles 226 and 227 of the Constitution to allow the application and directed the release of the muddamal vehicle with specific terms and conditions.
Issues: The main issue was the release of the muddamal vehicle under the Gujarat Prohibition Act, specifically in relation to the restrictions under Section 98(2) and the exercise of supervisory jurisdiction by the court.
Ratio Decidendi: The court relied on previous judgments and the interpretation of the law to exercise its powers under Articles 226 and 227 of the Constitution, allowing the release of the muddamal vehicle with specific terms and conditions.
Final Decision: The court allowed the petition, directing the release of the muddamal vehicle, Pulsar 200 DTS, with specific terms and conditions, including the furnishing of security bond, filing of undertakings, and provisions for the trial court to oversee the use of the vehicle.
JUDGMENT :
1. The petitioner has filed this application seeking to invoke extra ordinary jurisdiction of 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- Pulsar 200 DTS. I.F. Motor Cycle bearing RTO registration No.GJ-06-MB-9019 in connection with the FIR being CR. No. III – 431 of 2019 before the Bapod Police Station, District-Vadodara City for the offence punishable under Sections 65(E) and 98(2) of the Gujarat Prohibition Act.
2. Heard learned advocate Mr. Lucky Jucky Chan for the petitioner and learned APP Mr. H. K. Patel on behalf of the Respondent State of Gujarat through video conference.
Factual Matrix of the case:
3. It is the case of the petitioner that he is the owner of Pulsar 200 DTS. I.F. Motor Cycle bearing RTO registration No. GJ-06-MB-9019. 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 an application for releasing the muddamal has been preferred by the petitioner before the learned 7th Additional Civil Judge and JMFC, Vadodara, passed an order dated 22.07.2020 rejecting the same.
5. It is also contended that petitioner has purchased Pulsar 200 DTS. I.F. Motor Cycle bearing RTO registration No.GJ-06-MB-9019 and present the said vehicle is lying in Police Station in abandon condition 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 18.08.2020, returnable on 07.09.2020. 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 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.
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 by this Court (Coram: J. B. Pardiwala, J) in case of Anilkumar Ramlal @ Ramanlaji Mehta Vs. State of Gujarat in Special Criminal Application No. 2185 of 2018 dated 05.04.2018. Order dated 12.06.2020 passed in Special Criminal Application No. 7631 of 2019, wherein contrary view has taken in releasing muddamal vehicle involved in the Gujarat Prohibition Act. Learned APP further contended that SLP (Cri.) No. 886 of 2018 i
