ORAL ORDER

1. Rule. Learned APP waives service of notice of rule for and on behalf of respondent – State.

2. This petition is preferred under Articles 226 and 227 of the Constitution of India essentially seeking release of muddamal i.e. 350 bags of DE-OILRD Rice Bran (‘muddamal’ for short) to the petitioner, which was seized along with the liquor in connection with FIR bearing C.R.No.11196036240020 of 2024 registered at Harni Police Station, Vadodara, for the offence punishable under the Prohibition Act and also prays to quash and set aside the order dated 21.02.2024 passed by learned 6th Additional Judicial Magistrate First Class, Vadodara in Criminal Misc. Application No.1193/2024, whereby, the application for releasing muddamal has been rejected.

3. Heard learned advocate for the petitioner and learned APP for the respondent – State.

4. Learned advocate for the petitioner submits that the petitioner neither accused nor involved in any manner in the alleged offence registered under the Prohibition Act. He submitted that, the police has seized contraband liquor and offence has been registered, but along with the liquor, 350 bags of DE-OILRD Rice Bran worth of Rs.2,46,300/- has also been seized. Muddamal receipt is also produced on record.

5. From the report produced on record by learned APP, it appears that the impugned muddamal is not seized in connection with the alleged offence. Today, Mr. D.K.Rathod, Police Sub- Inspector, Harni Police Station is present and has stated before the Court that the muddamal is not connected in any manner with the alleged offence, neither seized in the alleged offence. Even learned trial Court has also observed in para 4 of the order dated 21.02.2024 passed in Criminal Misc. Application No.193/2024 that from the authority letter, muddamal bill and builty issued by Gurunanak Transport Company, it reveals that the muddamal belongs to the petitioner company. Considering the same, ownership of the muddamal is not in dispute. Now the moot question remains that once the investigating ofÏcer and learned trial Court come to the conclusion that the muddamal is not connected and/or is not seized in connection with the offence, then question does not arise to keep the muddamal unattended and to become junk within the police station premises. Even learned trial Court has also come to the conclusion that as per Rule 9 of the Gujarat Prohibition Rules, 2012, alleged liquor is more than 20 liters in quantity and dismissed the application and therefore, the learned trial Court has committed an error. Here, the present petition is not filed for releasing muddamal liquor or vehicle involved in the offence of prohibition. Further, muddamal being 350 bags of DE-OILRD Rice Bran is of the ownership of the petitioner company and not connected in any manner with the alleged offence.

6. The attention of the Court was invited to the judgment of the Apex Court in the case of Sunderbhai Ambalal Desai v. State of Gujarat, AIR 2003 SC 638, wherein the Apex Court in regard to the valuable articles and currency notes, held that no useful purpose would be served to keep such articles in police custody for years till the trial is over and in such cases, Magistrate should pass appropriate orders as contemplated under Section 451 of the Cr.P.C., at the earliest.

7. Learned Additional Public Prosecutor appearing for the respondent - State submits that powers of this Court under Article 226 of the Constitution to order release of the muddamal can be exercised at any time whenever the Court deems it appropriate. However, considering the facts of the case, this Court may pass appropriate order.

8. It would be worthwhile to refer profitably at this stage to the observations made by the Hon’ble Apex Court in the case of Sunderbhai Ambalal Desai (Supra), which read as under: "15. Learned senior counsel Mr. Dholakia, appearing for the State of Gujarat further submitted that at present in the police station premises, number of vehicles are kept