ORAL ORDER

1. In view of the order dated 18.01.2021 passed by this Court, learned APP has received the report from the concerned police authority and has placed the same on record.

2. Heard Mr.O. I. Pathan, learned advocate for the petitioner and Ms.Shruti Pathak, learned APP for the respondents through Video Conferencing.

3. The present petition has been filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India and under Section 482 of the Criminal Procedure Code for releasing the vehicle i.e. MAHINDRA AND MAHINDRA IMPERIO bearing Registration No.GJ-10-TV- 5440 and for quashing and setting aside the order dated 21.09.2020 passed by the learned Sessions Judge, Valsad in Criminal Revision Application No.36 of 2020.

4. It is averred in the petition that the present petitioner is the owner of the vehicle in question i.e. MAHINDRA AND MAHINDRA IMPERIO bearing Registration No.GJ-10-TV-5440 which came to be seized by the police authority. It is also averred by the petitioner that he is not the accused in the offence and, therefore, considering the provisions of the Prohibition Act and other decisions of this Court, the petition may be allowed.

5. Learned advocate for the petitioner has submitted the same facts which are narrated in the memo of petition. He has prayed to allow the present petition.

5.1 Learned advocate for the petitioner has urged that this Court has wide powers, while exercising such powers under Article 226 of the Constitution of India. It can also take into account the ratio laid down in the case of Sunderbhai Ambalal Desai Vs. State of Gujarat, AIR 2003 SC 638 wherein, the Apex Court lamented the scenario of number of vehicles having been kept unattended and becoming junk within the police station premises.

6. Learned APP has strongly opposed to the grant of present petition. She has submitted that in view of Section 98 of the Prohibition Act the vehicle used in the crime under Prohibition Act is liable to be confiscated and, therefore, the petition may not be entertained. She has submitted that if the vehicle is released, the same may be used in another crime and, therefore, this Court may not allow the present petition.

7. It would be worthwhile to refer profitably at this stage to the observations made by the 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 unattended and vehicles become junk day by day. It is his contention that appropriate directions should be given to the Magistrates who are dealing with such questions to hand over such vehicles to its owner or to the person from whom the said vehicles are seized by taking appropriate bond and the guarantee for the return of the said vehicles if required by the Court at any point of time.

16. However, the learned counsel appearing for the petitioners submitted that this question of handing over vehicles to the person from whom it is seized or to its true owner is always a matter of litigation and a lot of arguments are advanced by the concerned persons.

17. In our view, 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.”

8. Having considered the submissions made on behalf of learned advocates for both the sides and considering the facts that the vehicle i.e. MAHINDRA AND MAHINDRA IMPERIO bearing Registration No.GJ-10-TV-5440 has been seized by the concerned police authority during the course of the search under the Prohibition Act. It also reveals from the materials placed on record that the petitioner is the owner of the said vehicle and is not