IMPORTANT POINT
The main legal point established in the judgment is that trial courts have no jurisdiction to order interim release of seized vehicles if the quantity of the liquor recovered exceeds ten liters, as per the provisions of the Prohibition Act and the precedent set in a previous judgment.

JUDGMENT :

1. The respondent No.1, although served with the notice rule issued by this Court, yet has chosen not to appear before this Court either in person or through an advocate and oppose the present application.

2. By way of this application, the applicant-State seeks to invoke the extraordinary jurisdiction of this Court under Article 226 and supervisory jurisdiction under Article 227 of the Constitution of India so also inherent powers under Section 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973, praying for quashing of the order dated 18.11.2017 passed by learned 9th Additional Sessions Judge, Surat below Exh.4 in Criminal Misc. Application No.378 of 2017 and to confirm the order dated 25.09.2017 passed in relation to offence registered at Kamrej Police Station being III-C.R. No.421 of 2017 by the learned Judicial Magistrate, First Class, Kathor.

3. The facts giving rise to the present application may be summarized as under;

3.1 One Ranchhodbhai Kababhai, an Unarmed Police Constable, Buckle No.878, serving at S.O.G. Branch, Surat lodged a first information report stating that while he was on patrolling duty along with the other police staff, at that time, he received a discreet information from the reliable sources that one grey coloured Eco Car bearing its registration No.GJ- 05-JL-9205 containing bottles of foreign made liquor would come from Vapi and reach to Surat by passing through National Highway No.8 and Kamrej Cross Road. Acting upon the same, a trap was arranged on the Kamrej Cross Road heading towards Surat and intercepted the vehicle under information. Two persons were found to be there sitting in the vehicle in question, and upon asking about their identities, they identified themselves as Prakasbhai Rasikbhai Popat and Vinaybhai Niranjanbhai Dave. Thereafter, during the course of a search, four plastic made sacks were found lying there below the middle and last seat from which total 56 bottles of foreign made liquor worth Rs.26,560/- were recovered from the possession of the accused which was being transported without any valid permit. The police also seized the alleged Eco Car. Accordingly, offence under Sections 65(e), 98(2) and 81 of the Prohibition Act was registered.

4. Learned APP Mr. L.B. Dabhi appearing for the applicant- State of Gujarat submits that a complaint came to be registered by a public servant serving in the police department as a head constable being C.R. No.III-421 of 2017 for the offence punishable under Sections 65(e), 98(2) and 81 of the Prohibition Act alleging illegal transportation of the prohibited liquor by the accused persons. It is alleged in the FIR that pursuant to the discreet information received by the police, a trap was made wherein one vehicle was intercepted by the police containing number of bottles of prohibited liquor which was then seized by the police. Learned APP Mr. Dabhi further submits that, therefore, the owner of the said vehicle filed an application under section 451 of Cr.P.C before the learned Judicial Magistrate, First Class, Kathor for interim release of the said vehicle by producing all the relevant materials regarding the ownership of the vehicle. After hearing both the parties and appreciating all the materials available on record, the learned Magistrate rejected the said application vide order dated 25.09.2017 by observing that there is a specific bar under Section 98(2) of the Gujarat Prohibition Act which provides that any muddamal article seized in connection with the prohibition offence, cannot be released on any kind of bond or surety till the final judgment of the court when the quantity of the seized liquor exceeds 10 liter. Admittedly, the prohibited liquor found from the vehicle in question was more than 10 liter and, therefore, the learned Magistrate has rightly rejected the application as there are specific restrictions imposed by the statute itself.

5. The aforesaid order passed by the learned JMFC, Kathor, was challenged before the revisional